legalization of same sex marriage research paper

Effects of Access to Legal Same-Sex Marriage on Marriage and Health: Evidence from BRFSS

We exploit variation in access to legal same-sex marriage (SSM) across states and time to provide novel evidence of its effects on marriage and health using data from the CDC BRFSS from 2000-2016, a period spanning the entire rollout of legal SSM across the United States. Our main approach is to relate changes in outcomes for individuals in same-sex households (SSH) [i.e., households with exactly two same-sex adults], which we show includes a substantial share of gay and lesbian couples, coincident with adoption of legal SSM in two-way fixed effects models. We find robust evidence that access to legal SSM significantly increased marriage take-up among men and women in SSH. We also find that legal SSM was associated with significant increases in health insurance, access to care, and utilization for men in SSH. Our results provide the first evidence that legal access to SSM improved health for adult gay men.

Carpenter is Professor of Economics at Vanderbilt University, Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Research Fellow at IZA Institute for the Study of Labor. Eppink is a PhD candidate at Vanderbilt University. Gonzales is Assistant Professor of Health Policy at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. McKay is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Health, and Society at Vanderbilt University. We thank Ron Stall for sharing data on LGBT policies. For helpful comments, we thank: David Adler, Cevat Aksoy, Ralph De Haas, Marcus Dillender, Jae Downing, Kerry Anne McGeary and Justin Trogdon; participants at the 2018 American Society of Health Economics conference, the 2018 Workshop on Institutions, Individual Behavior, and Economic Outcomes, and the 2018 Population Association of America conference; and seminar participants at AHRQ, Hunter College, RAND, UIUC, U. Louisville, UNC-Charlotte, and Vanderbilt. Support for this research was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation or the National Bureau of Economic Research. All interpretations, errors, and omissions are our own.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Mentioned in the News

More from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

The effect of same-sex marriage legalization on interstate migration in the USA

• Original Paper
• Published: 04 May 2021
• Volume 35 , pages 441–469, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Miriam Marcén   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1944-4790 1 &
• Marina Morales   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9957-6613 1  

1703 Accesses

8 Citations

12 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper analyzes the impact of marriage regulations on the migratory behavior of individuals using the history of the liberalization of same-sex marriage across the USA. The legalization of same-sex marriage allows homosexuals’ access to legal rights and social benefits, which can make marriage more attractive in comparison to singlehood or other forms of partnership. The results clearly show that legalization increased the migration flow of gay men to states that legalized same-sex marriage. We do not detect statistically significant effects for women in the short term. Supplemental analysis, developed to explore whether the migration flow translated to a significant effect on the number of homosexuals by state, suggests that the increase after the legalization of same-sex marriage was transitory. Legalization of same-sex marriage also reduces the incentives for non-US-native individuals originating from intolerant countries to move to a state that permits same-sex marriage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Comment on “the effect of same-sex marriage laws on different-sex marriage: evidence from the netherlands”.

Changing Sex-Ratios Among Immigrant Communities in the USA

Institutionalizing Same-Sex Marriage in Argentina and Mexico: The Role of Federalism

The term homosexual refers to gays and lesbians in this study.

We want to thank a referee for this interesting suggestion.

Using methodologies quite similar to that presented here, we have found several papers that examine the role of law reforms on different outcomes. For example, some researchers focus their attention on the impact of divorce law reforms on divorce rates (Wolfers 2006 ; González-Val and Marcén 2012 ), fertility rates (Bellido and Marcén 2014 ), marriage rates (Drewianka 2008 ), and suicide and domestic violence (Stevenson and Wolfers 2006 ). Other papers have considered the effect of custody law reforms on marriage rates and fertility rates (Halla 2013 ), economic well-being (Del Boca and Ribero 1998 ; Allen et al. 2011 ), and educational attainment (Leo 2008 ; Nunley and Seals 2011 ). In all these cases, the empirical approach is based on the exogeneity of the law reforms. We revisit this issue below.

We obtain similar results when accounting for pre-existing differences across states incorporating the interaction between the state-fixed effects and calendar and quadratic calendar time (see Table 2 ). Results do not vary with/without weights. The intuition behind using weighted least squares is that a positive effect of same-sex marriage legalization in say, California, will carry more weight than a positive effect in New Hampshire (Friedberg 1998 ).

We omitted respondents for whom sex was allocated by the data administrators to avoid erroneous classification of same-sex households (Hansen et al. 2020 ).

Not all individuals in the LGBT community are included in the data since we can only identify couples where both individuals are male, or both are identified as female from the ACS. These data consider only a subset of individuals in the LGBT community. We recognize that this is an inherent problem when analyzing same-sex individuals.

We did not consider the effective date of the legislation since the announcement of the legalization of same-sex marriage can also attract homosexuals. Note that we are using annual data, so the differences between the effective date and the date used here are not likely to have an impact on our dataset. In any case, our results are robust to the use of the timing of the effective date of the law instead of using the announcement date. Results are presented in the Appendix, Table 10 .

The variation in sample size is due to the fact that in some states all homosexuals identified in some years are gay or lesbian. North Dakota only has gay migrants in some years but not lesbian. Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming only have lesbian migrants but not gay migrants in some years. Our results are maintained without those states and years in which there are no observations in the microdata about lesbian women or gay men (see column 1 of Table 9 in the Appendix). This can be consequence of a problem of identification of gay/lesbian individuals in some specific state-years because the sample size is quite small in some cases. We prefer to be conservative and run the analysis without the information of those state-years when separating the sample by gender. In any case, we only lost five observations in the gay sample and two in the lesbian sample. Results are maintained if we consider no gay/lesbian migrants in those state-years. We have also run the analysis filling those gaps with linear interpolation and results are maintained (see columns 2 and 3 of Table 9 in the Appendix).

Note that there is evidence of this in the USA, Italy, the UK, and the Netherlands, among others (Plug and Berkhout 2004 ; Patacchini et al. 2015 ; Drydakis 2019 ), but not for Greece, which observed a negative effect of lesbian sexual orientation on labor outcomes (Drydakis 2011 ).

Note that our findings are limited to the use of a sample that only includes individuals living in a same-sex relationship. We recognize that the number of unmarried couples identified in those states without same-sex marriage can be underestimated since homosexuals can be more likely to be living apart to reduce stigma. This could bias our estimates.

We provided additional evidence that pre-existing trends on homosexual migration are not driving our results by including a dummy variable which takes the value 1 during the periods − 1 and − 2, that is, 1 and 2 years prior to the legalization of the same-sex marriage. Results are reported in Table 10 in the Appendix where it is observed that the pre-same-sex marriage coefficient is not statistically significant. Thus, it appears that our results are not simply the continuation of prior patterns. We also re-ran our main analysis by limiting the sample to those states that legalized same-sex marriage via a judicial decision (Hansen et al. 2020 ), since this implementation may be less likely to be predicted. Note that these results should be taken with caution due to the scarcity of observations after this limitation of the sample. In any case, we find evidence of a positive and significant impact on the migration of gay men, which is in line with all our findings.

Note that the scarcity of observations can generate concerns on the validity of our estimates after the inclusion of all these additional controls. For this reason, the analysis is presented without those state-specific trends.

We have re-run these specifications including each of these additional controls separately, and the results did not vary.

Note that all same-sex couples who reported being married were recoded to unmarried cohabiting partners until 2013. Thus, the addition of married individuals to the sample only captured married individuals from 2013 to 2015 ( https://usa.ipums.org/usa-action/variables/MARST#editing_procedure_section ).

The coefficient picking up the effect 1–2 years is positive and different from zero although non-statistically significant, which may indicate that this is more imprecisely estimated.

Unfortunately, we cannot re-run the analysis considering migration between each pair of states due to the scarcity of observations to obtain reliable estimations.

Results on the impact of these legislations should be taken with caution, since in some cases the dates of the reforms are quite close and even coincide. In any case, we have repeated the analysis including each legislation at a time and our results have not changed substantially. We recognize that the estimated coefficients after 5 to 6 years of same-sex marriage legalization appear to be more imprecisely estimated, albeit positive.

Homosexuals appear to earn less than their heterosexual counterparts in the USA and in other countries (Ahmed and Hammarstedt 2010 ; Badgett 1995 ; Clain and Leppel 2001 ; Grossbard and Jensen  2008 ), generating budget constraints to move to a more distant state, because the greater the physical distance, the higher the migration costs (Belot and Hatton 2012 ; Bellido and Marcén 2015 ). Although this is mainly only observed for gay men (Drydakis 2012 ) and not for lesbian women who are found to earn more than heterosexual women (Klawitter 2015 ). However, the opposite could be possible. With low wages, opportunity costs would be lower for homosexuals, encouraging migration for homosexuals. Also, since homosexual households are less likely to have children, this reduces over a lifetime the necessities of some household resources (Black et al. 2002 ; Grossbard and Jensen 2008 ), which can make them free in the migration process. Our preliminary results, controlling for the possible effect of physical distance, do not alter our findings. We do not include these here because, as suggested by a referee, this is not surprising.

Same-sex marriage can increase cohabitation/marriage among state residents in addition to migration. Therefore, these results cannot be completely attributed to the effect of migration. Note again that here we are considering a subset of individuals of the LGBT community: individuals in same-sex couples. We can only identify this subset in the ACS. According to the School of Law Williams Institute (UCLA), the total same-sex couples were 646,500 (1.3 million individuals) which represent around 0.4% of the US population in 2010 ( https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/visualization/lgbt-stats/?topic=SS#density ). This is quite close to the mean of the number of homosexuals obtained in our sample (0.42% for the entire period; see Table 6 ).

Note that the pattern of homophobic behavior appears to persist over time across countries (Chang 2020 ).

Ahmed AM, Hammarstedt M (2010) Sexual orientation and earnings: a register data-based approach to identify homosexuals. J Popul Econ 23(3):835–849

Google Scholar  

Allen BD, Nunley JM, Seals A (2011) The effect of joint-child-custody legislation on the child-support receipt of single mothers. J Fam Econ Iss 32(1):124–139

Badgett ML (1995) The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Ind Labor Relat Rev 48(4):726–739

Badgett MV (2009) The economic value of marriage for same-sex couples. Drake Law Rev 58:1081

Beaudin L (2017) Marriage equality and interstate migration. Appl Econ 49(30):2956–2973

Becker G (1973) A theory of marriage: Part I. J Polit Econ 81(4):813–846

Bellido H, Marcén M (2014) Divorce laws and fertility. Labour Econ 27:56–70

Bellido H, Marcén M (2015) Spaniards in the wider World, MPRA Paper 63966. University Library of Munich, Germany

Belot MV, Hatton TJ (2012) Immigrant selection in the OECD. Scand J Econ 114(4):1105–1128

Black D, Gates G, Sanders S, Taylor L (2002) Why do gay men live in San Francisco? J Urban Econ 51(1):54–76

Black DA, Sanders SG, Taylor LJ (2007) The economics of lesbian and gay families. J Econ Perspect 21(2):53–70

Borghans L, Golsteyn BH (2012) Job mobility in Europe, Japan and the United States. Br J Ind Relat 50(3):436–456

Bureau of Labor and Statistics (2018) Labor market activity, education, and partner status among Americans at age 31: results from a longitudinal survey. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsyth.pdf . Accessed Dec 2020 

Chang S (2020) The sex ratio and global sodomy law reform in the post-WWII era. J Popul Econ:1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-020-00773-7

Clain SH, Leppel K (2001) An investigation into sexual orientation discrimination as an explanation for wage differences. Appl Econ 33(1):37–47

Davies PS, Greenwood MJ, Li H (2001) A conditional logit approach to US state-to-state migration. J Reg Sci 41(2):337–360

Del Boca D, Ribero R (1998) Transfers in non-intact households. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 9(4):469–478

Dillender M (2014) The death of marriage? The effects of new forms of legal recognition on marriage rates in the United States. Demography 51(2):563–585

Drewianka S (2008) Divorce law and family formation. J Popul Econ 21(2):485–503

Drydakis N (2011) Women’s sexual orientation and labor market outcomes in Greece. Fem Econ 17(1):89–117

Drydakis N (2012) Sexual orientation and labour relations: new evidence from Athens, Greece. Appl Econ 44(20):2653–2665

Drydakis N (2019) Sexual orientation and labor market outcomes. IZA World of Labor. https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.111.v2

Book   Google Scholar  

Enchautegui ME (1997) Welfare payments and other economic determinants of female migration. J Labor Econ 15(3):529–554. https://doi.org/10.1086/209871

Article   Google Scholar  

Fiva JH (2009) Does welfare policy affect residential choices? An empirical investigation accounting for policy endogeneity. J Public Econ 93:529–540

Francis AM, Mialon HM, Peng H (2012) In sickness and in health: Same-sex marriage laws and sexually transmitted infections. Soc Sci Med 75(8):1329–1341

Friedberg L (1998) Did unilateral divorce raise divorce rates? Evidence from panel data. Am Econ Rev 88(3):608–627

Gelbach JB (2004) Migration, the life cycle, and state benefits: how low is the bottom? J Polit Econ 112(5):1091–1130

Gerstmann E (2017) Same-sex marriage and the constitution. In: Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp I–Ii

Gius M (2011) The effect of income taxes on interstate migration: an analysis by age and race. Ann Reg Sci 46(1):205–218

González-Val R, Marcén M (2012) Unilateral divorce versus child custody and child support in the U.S. J Econ Behav Organ 81(2):613–643

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E. 2d 941 (2003)

Greenwood MJ (1997) Internal migration in developed countries. Handb Popul Fam Econ 1:647–720

Grossbard S, Jepsen LK (2008) The economics of gay and lesbian couples: introduction to a special issue on gay and lesbian households. Rev Econ Househ 6(4):311–325

Gurak DT, Kritz MM (2000) The interstate migration of US immigrants: individual and contextual determinants. Soc Forces 78(3):1017–1039

Halla M (2013) The effect of joint custody on family outcomes. J Eur Econ Assoc 11(2):278–315

Hamermesh DS, Delhommer S (2020) Same-sex couples and the marital surplus: the importance of the legal environment, (No. w26875). National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working paper series

Hansen ME, Martell ME, Roncolato L (2020) A labor of love: the impact of same-sex marriage on labor supply. Rev Econ Househ 18:265–283

Hatzenbuehler ML, O'Cleirigh C, Grasso C, Mayer K, Safren S, Bradford J (2012) Effect of same-sex marriage laws on health care use and expenditures in sexual minority men: a quasi-natural experiment. Am J Public Health 102(2):285–291

ILGA World (2019) International lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex association: Lucas Ramon Mendos. State-Sponsored Homophobia, Geneva

Kane M (2003) Social movement policy success: decriminalizing state sodomy laws, 1969–1998. Mobilization 8(3):313–334

Klawitter M (2015) Meta-analysis of the effects of sexual orientation on earnings. Ind Relat 54(1):4–32

Langbein L, Yost MA (2009) Same-sex marriage and negative externalities. Soc Sci Q 90(2):292–308

Leo TW (2008) From maternal preference to joint custody: the impact of changes in custody law on child educational attainment, Working Paper

Long L, Tucker CJ, Urton WL (1988) Migration distances: an international comparison. Demography 25(4):633–640

Lucas RE (2001) The effects of proximity and transportation on developing country population migrations. J Econ Geogr 1(3):323–339

Mayda AM (2010) International migration: a panel data analysis of the determinants of bilateral flows. J Popul Econ 23(4):1249–1274

McKinnish T (2005) Importing the poor welfare magnetism and cross-border welfare migration. J Hum Resour 40(1):57–76

McKinnish T (2007) Welfare-induced migration at state borders: new evidence from micro-data. J Public Econ 91(3):437–450

Movement Advancement Project (2019) Non-discrimination laws.  https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws . Accessed Dec 2020 

Negrusa B, Oreffice S (2011) Sexual orientation and household financial decisions: evidence from couples in the United States. Rev Econ Househ 9(4):445

Nunley JM, Seals RA (2011) Child-custody reform, marital investment in children, and the labor supply of married mothers. Labour Econ 18(1):14–24

Obergefell vs. Hodges, 576 U.S. (no. 14-556), 2015 WL 2473451

Ocobock A (2013) The power and limits of marriage: married gay men’s family relationships. J Marriage Fam 75(1):191–205

Patacchini E, Ragusa G, Zenou Y (2015) Unexplored dimensions of discrimination in Europe: homosexuality and physical appearance. J Popul Econ 28(4):1045–1073

Pinello DR (2016) America’s war on same-sex couples and their families: and how the courts rescued them. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316402351

Plug E, Berkhout P (2004) Effects of sexual preferences on earnings in the Netherlands. J Popul Econ 17(1):117–131

Rogers A, Raymer J (1998) The spatial focus of US interstate migration flows. Popul Space Place 4(1):63–80

Ruggles S, Genadek K, Goeken R, Grover J, Sobek M (2018) Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 7.0 [Machine-readable database]. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V8.0

Stevenson B, Wolfers J (2006) Bargaining in the shadow of the law: divorce laws and family distress. Q J Econ 121(1):267–288

Trandafir M (2015) Legal recognition of same-sex couples and family formation. Demography 52(1):113–151

Vossen D, Sternberg R, Alfken C (2019) Internal migration of the “creative class” in Germany. Reg Stud 53(10):1359–1370

Wolfers J (2006) Did unilateral divorce laws raise divorce rates? A reconciliation and new results. Am Econ Rev 96(5):1802–1820

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article has benefited from comments provided by Professor Klaus F. Zimmermann and five anonymous referees.

This research has been funded by the Regional Government of Aragon and the European Fund of Regional Development (Grant S32_20R).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universidad de Zaragoza, Gran Vía 2, 50005, Zaragoza, Spain

Miriam Marcén & Marina Morales

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Morales .

Ethics declarations

Competing interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible editor : Klaus F. Zimmermann

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Marcén, M., Morales, M. The effect of same-sex marriage legalization on interstate migration in the USA. J Popul Econ 35 , 441–469 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-021-00842-5

Download citation

Received : 27 January 2020

Accepted : 18 March 2021

Published : 04 May 2021

Issue Date : April 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-021-00842-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Homosexuals

JEL classification

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Perceived psychosocial impacts of legalized same-sex marriage: A scoping review of sexual minority adults’ experiences

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation College of Health and Human Sciences, San José State University, San José, California, United States of America

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Political Science and Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America

Affiliation Educational, Counseling and School Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America

Affiliation Center for Human Sexuality Studies, Widener University, Chester, Pennsylvania, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Psychology, Palo Alto University, Palo Alto, California, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Nursing & Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America

• Laurie A. Drabble, 
• Angie R. Wootton, 
• Cindy B. Veldhuis, 
• Ellen D. B. Riggle, 
• Sharon S. Rostosky, 
• Pamela J. Lannutti, 
• Kimberly F. Balsam, 
• Tonda L. Hughes

• Published: May 6, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125
• Reader Comments

A growing body of literature provides important insights into the meaning and impact of the right to marry a same-sex partner among sexual minority people. We conducted a scoping review to 1) identify and describe the psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults, and 2) explore sexual minority women (SMW) perceptions of equal marriage rights and whether psychosocial impacts differ by sex. Using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework we reviewed peer-reviewed English-language publications from 2000 through 2019. We searched six databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, JSTOR, and Sociological Abstracts) to identify English language, peer-reviewed journal articles reporting findings from empirical studies with an explicit focus on the experiences and perceived impact of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults. We found 59 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Studies identified positive psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage (e.g., increased social acceptance, reduced stigma) across individual, interpersonal (dyad, family), community (sexual minority), and broader societal levels. Studies also found that, despite equal marriage rights, sexual minority stigma persists across these levels. Only a few studies examined differences by sex, and findings were mixed. Research to date has several limitations; for example, it disproportionately represents samples from the U.S. and White populations, and rarely examines differences by sexual or gender identity or other demographic characteristics. There is a need for additional research on the impact of equal marriage rights and same-sex marriage on the health and well-being of diverse sexual minorities across the globe.

Citation: Drabble LA, Wootton AR, Veldhuis CB, Riggle EDB, Rostosky SS, Lannutti PJ, et al. (2021) Perceived psychosocial impacts of legalized same-sex marriage: A scoping review of sexual minority adults’ experiences. PLoS ONE 16(5): e0249125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125

Editor: Peter A. Newman, University of Toronto, CANADA

Received: September 9, 2020; Accepted: March 11, 2021; Published: May 6, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Drabble et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: Dr. Drabble and Dr. Trocki are supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R03MD011481 ( https://www.nimhd.nih.gov/ ). Dr. Veldhuis’ participation in this research was made possible through an NIH/NIAAA Ruth Kirschstein Postdoctoral Research Fellowship (F32AA025816; PI C. Veldhuis). Dr. Hughes is funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA0013328, https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/ ). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Legalization of same-sex marriage represents one important step toward advancing equal rights for sexual and gender minorities. Over the past two decades same-sex marriage has become legally recognized in multiple countries around the world. Between 2003 and mid-2015, same-sex couples in the United States (U.S.) gained the right to marry in 37 of 50 states. This right was extended to all 50 states in June 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples in all U.S. states had equal marriage rights. As of October 2019, same-sex couples had the right to marry in 30 countries and territories around the world [ 1 ].

National laws or policies that extend equal marriage rights to same-sex couples signal a reduction in structural stigma and have the potential to positively impact the health and well-being of sexual minorities. Structural stigma refers to norms and policies on societal, institutional and cultural levels that negatively impact the opportunities, access, and well-being of a particular group [ 2 ]. Forms of structural stigma that affect sexual minorities—such as restrictions on same-sex marriage—reflect and reinforce the social stigma against non-heterosexual people that occurs at individual, interpersonal, and community levels [ 3 ]. According to Hatzenbuehler and colleagues, structural stigma is an under-recognized contributor to health disparities among stigmatized populations [ 4 – 6 ], and reductions in structural stigma can improve health outcomes among sexual minorities [ 7 , 8 ].

Marriage is a fundamental institution across societies and access to the right to marry can reduce sexual-minority stigma by integrating sexual minority people more fully into society [ 9 ]. Same-sex marriage also provides access to a wide range of tangible benefits and social opportunities associated with marriage [ 9 , 10 ]. Despite the benefits of marriage rights, sexual minorities continue to experience stigma-related stressors, such as rejection from family or community, and discrimination in employment and other life spheres [ 11 ]. In addition, reactions to same-sex marriage appear to differ among sexual minorities and range from positive to ambivalent [ 11 – 13 ]. Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples remedies only one form of structural stigma. Although legalization of same-sex marriage represents a positive shift in the social and political landscape, the negative impact of social stigma may persist over time. For example, a recent Dutch study found that despite 20 years of equal marriage rights, sexual minority adolescents continue to show higher rates of substance use and lower levels of well-being than their heterosexual peers [ 14 ]. This study underscores the importance of understanding the complex impact of stigma at the structural, community, interpersonal, and individual levels.

Impact on sexual minority health

A growing body of literature, using different methods from diverse countries where same-sex marriage has been debated or adopted, provides important insights into the impact of equal marriage rights on the health and well-being of sexual minority individuals. Research to date has consistently found that legal recognition of same-sex marriage has a positive impact on health outcomes among sexual and gender minority populations [ 15 – 20 ]. Studies in the U.S. have found evidence of reduced psychological distress and improved self-reported health among sexual minorities living in states with equal marriage rights compared to those living in states without such rights [ 5 , 21 – 23 ]. One state-specific study also found improved health outcomes for sexual minority men after legalization of same-sex marriage [ 24 ]. Furthermore, sexual minorities living in states that adopted, or were voting on, legislation restricting marriage recognition to different-sex couples reported higher rates of alcohol use disorders and psychological distress compared to those living in states without such restrictions [ 5 , 25 – 31 ]. Consistent with research in the U.S., findings from research in Australia on marriage restriction voting, found that sexual minorities living in jurisdictions where a majority of residents voted in support of same-sex marriage reported better overall health, mental health, and life satisfaction than sexual minorities in locales that did not support same-sex marriage rights [ 32 ].

Although existing literature reviews have documented positive impacts of equal marriage rights on physical and mental health outcomes among sexual minority individuals [ 15 – 20 ], to our knowledge no reviews have conducted a nuanced exploration of the individual, interpersonal, and community impacts of legalized same-sex marriage. An emerging body of quantitative and qualitative literature affords a timely opportunity to examine a wide range of psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights. Understanding these impacts is important to guide and interpret future research about the potential protective health effects of same-sex marriage.

Potential differences between SMW and SMM

Given the dearth of research focusing on the health and well-being of sexual minority women (SMW), especially compared to the sizable body of research on sexual minority men (SMM) [ 33 , 34 ], there is a need to explore whether the emerging literature on same-sex marriage provides insights about potential differences in psychosocial impacts between SMW and SMM. Recent research underscores the importance of considering SMW’s perspectives and experiences related to same-sex marriage. For example, gendered social norms play out differently for women and men in same-sex and different-sex marriages, and interpersonal dynamics and behaviors, including those related to coping with stress, are influenced by gender socialization [ 35 ]. However, there is little research about how societal-level gender norms and gendered social constructions of marriage may be reflected in SMW’s perceptions of same-sex marriage. Structural sexism (e.g., gendered power and resource inequality at societal and institutional levels) differentially impacts women’s and men’s health [ 36 ], and may also contribute to sex differences in experiences and impacts of same-sex marriage. For example, research from the U.S. suggests that same-sex marriage rights may improve health outcomes and access to healthcare for SMM, but evidence is less robust for SMW [ 37 – 39 ]. Differences in health outcomes appear to be at least partially explained by lower socioeconomic status (income, employment status, perceived financial strain) among SMW compared to SMM [ 40 ]. Further, other psychosocial factors may contribute to differential experiences of legalized same-sex marriage. For example, a study of older sexual minority adults in states with equal marriage rights found that married SMW experienced more LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) microaggressions than single SMW, but no differences by relationship status were noted among SMM [ 41 ]. Mean number of microaggressions experienced by SMW in partnered unmarried relationships fell between, but were not significantly different from, that of married and single SMW.

Theoretical framework

Social-ecological and stigma theoretical perspectives were used as the framework for organizing literature in this review (See Fig 1 ). Stigma occurs and is experienced by sexual minorities at individual, interpersonal, and structural levels, which mirror the levels of focus within the social-ecological framework [ 6 , 42 ]. Consequently, changes such as extending equal marriage rights to same-sex couples may influence sexual minorities’ experiences of stigma across all of these levels [ 43 ]. Gaining access to the institution of marriage is distinct from marital status (or being married) and likely impacts sexual minority adults across individual, interpersonal, and community contexts [ 44 ], regardless of relationship status.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.g001

From a social-ecological perspective, individual and interpersonal processes can amplify or weaken the impact of structural level policies, such as equal marriage rights, on sexual minority individuals’ health and well-being [ 43 , 45 , 46 ]. For example, on an individual level, experiences and perceptions of equal marriage rights may influence stigma-related processes such as internalized heterosexism, comfort with disclosure, and centrality of sexual identity [ 47 ]. Interpersonal and community level interactions may trigger stigma-related processes such as prejudice concerns, vigilance, or mistrust. Such processes may in turn, influence the impact of social policy change on sexual minority stress and well-being [ 48 – 50 ].

The impact of equal marriage rights among sexual minority individuals may also be influenced by other social and political factors such as state- or regional-level social climate [ 50 – 52 ], or inconsistency among other policy protections against discrimination (e.g., in housing or public accommodations) [ 11 , 50 ]. Sociopolitical uncertainty may continue long after the right to marry is extended to same-sex couples [ 53 , 54 ]. Monk and Ogolsky [ 44 ] define political uncertainty as a state of “having doubts about legal recognition bestowed on individuals and families by outside systems; being unsure about social acceptance of marginalized relationships; being unsure about how ‘traditional’ social norms and roles pertain to marginalized relationships or how alternative scripts might unfold” (p. 2).

Current study

The overall aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize existing literature on psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults. Specific objectives were to: 1) identify and describe the psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights on sexual minority adults; and 2) explore SMW-specific perceptions of equal marriage rights and whether psychosocial impacts differ for SMM and SMW.

Study design

We used a scoping review approach, as it is well-suited for aims designed to provide a descriptive overview of a large and diverse body of literature [ 55 ]. Scoping reviews have become a widely used approach for synthesizing research evidence, particularly in health-related fields [ 55 ]. Scoping reviews summarize the range of research, identify key characteristics or factors related to concepts, and identify knowledge gaps in particular areas of study [ 56 , 57 ]. By contrast, systematic reviews are more narrowly focused on creating a critically appraised synthesized answer to a particular question pertinent to clinical practice or policy making [ 57 ]. We aimed to characterize and summarize research related to psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights and same-sex marriage, including potential gaps in research specific to SMW. Following Arksey and O’Malley [ 56 ], the review was conducted using the following steps: 1) identifying the research question, 2) identifying relevant studies, 3) selecting studies, 4) charting the data, and 5) collating, summarizing and reporting results. Because this is a scoping review, it was not registered with PROSPERO, an international registry for systematic reviews.

Selection method

The authors used standard procedures for conducting scoping reviews, including following PRISMA guidelines [ 58 ]. Articles that report findings from empirical studies with an explicit focus on the psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights and same-sex marriage on sexual minority adults are included in this review. All database searches were limited to studies in English language journals published from 2000 through 2019 (our most recent search was executed in June 2020). This time frame reflects the two decades since laws regarding same-sex marriage began to change in various countries or jurisdictions within countries. Literature review articles and commentaries were excluded. To ensure that sources had been vetted for scientific quality by experts, only articles in peer-reviewed journals were included; books and research in the grey literature (e.g., theses, dissertations, and reports) were excluded. There was no restriction on study location. A librarian searched PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science, JSTOR, and Sociological Abstracts databases using combinations of key search terms. Following is an example of the search terms used in CINAHL database searches: ((TI "marriage recognition" OR AB "marriage recognition") OR (TI marriage OR AB marriage) OR (TI same-sex OR AB same-sex) OR (TI "same sex" OR AB "same sex")) AND ((TI LGBT OR AB LGBT) OR (TI gay OR AB gay) OR (TI lesbian OR AB lesbian) OR (TI bisexual OR AB bisexual) OR (TI transgender OR AB transgender) OR (TI Obergefell OR AB Obergefell) OR (TI "sexual minorities" OR AB "sexual minorities))

Articles were selected in two stages of review. In stage one, the first author and librarian independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion or exclusion using eligibility criteria. We excluded articles focused solely on the impact of relationship status on health outcomes, satisfaction or dynamics within marriage relationships, or the process of getting married (e.g., choices of who to invite, type of ceremony), or other topics that did not pertain directly to the research aims. For example, a study about the impact of getting married that also included themes pertaining to the impact or meaning of equal marriage rights was included in the full review. The first author and a librarian met to review and resolve differences and, in cases where relevance was ambiguous, articles underwent a full-text review (in stage 2). Table 1 summarizes exclusion categories used in the title and abstract reviews.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.t001

In stage two, articles not excluded in stage one were retrieved for full-text review. Each article was independently reviewed by two authors to assess study relevance. Discrepancies related to inclusion were few (less than 10%) and resolved through discussion and consensus-building among the first four authors. This process resulted in an analytic sample of 59 articles (see Fig 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.g002

Table 2 provides an overview of characteristics of the studies included in this scoping review. Most were qualitative and most aggregated SMW and SMM in analyses. Only 14 studies explored differences in impact for SMW and SMM, or separately examined the specific perceptions and experiences of SMW. Although search terms were inclusive of transgender individuals, samples in the studies we reviewed rarely included or focused explicitly on experiences of transgender or gender nonbinary identified individuals. In studies that explicitly included transgender and nonbinary individuals, sample sizes were rarely large enough to permit examination of differences based on gender identity (e.g., survey samples with 2–3% representation of nonbinary or transgender individuals) [ 44 , 59 – 63 ]. Other studies recruiting sexual minorities may have included transgender and nonbinary individuals (who also identified as sexual minorities), but did not assess gender identity. Among studies in which participant race/ethnicity was reported, most included samples that were majority White.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.t002

Studies of the impact of legalized marriage on physical health were not excluded in the original search parameters; however, physical health has been addressed in prior reviews [ 15 – 20 ]. Further, because our research questions focused on psychosocial factors, we excluded studies on physical health unless they also addressed individual, interpersonal, or community psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage legalization. Studies that focused on physical health impacts or access to health insurance were used only in the introduction.

Civil union was not explicitly included as a search parameter, but articles focusing on civil unions were captured in our search. Although civil unions are not equivalent to marriage, they often confer similar substantive legal rights. We included articles about civil union that explicitly pertained to our research question, such as a study that examined perceived stigma and discrimination before and after implementation of civil union legislation in one U.S. state [ 64 ], and excluded articles that did not (e.g., a study of relationship quality or longevity among same-sex couples in civil unions) [ 65 ].

A majority of the studies were conducted in the U.S. Of the 43 U.S. studies, 20 sampled from a single state, 10 included participants from multiple states, 12 used a national sample, and one had no human subjects (secondary analysis of legal cases). Of those sampling a single state, all focused on the impact of changes (or proposed changes) in same-sex marriage policy: 10 focused on Massachusetts (the first state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage), two focused on Iowa, two on Vermont, and two on California. One article each included study participants from Nebraska, Oregon, Illinois, and a small (unnamed) non-metropolitan town in the Midwest.

Analysis method

We created a data extraction form to ensure consistency across team members in extracting key study information and characteristics including study design (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, or mixed method), location (e.g., country and/or region), sample (e.g., whether the study included or excluded SMW or SMM, assessed and reported race/ethnicity), and key results. Articles were also classified based on findings related to level of impact (e.g., individual, couple, family, community, or broader social attitudes toward LGBTQ+ individuals; see S1 Table ). A final category on significance/implications allowed reviewers to further identify and comment on major themes and relevance to the current review. Themes were then identified and organized using stigma and social-ecological frameworks.

Aim 1: Psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage rights

Individual level impacts..

Although most studies about the impact of equal marriage rights have been conducted with couples or individuals in committed or married relationships, 15 studies in this review included sexual minority adults across relationship statuses. In general, studies examining the impact of equal marriage rights among sexual minorities suggest that equal access to marriage has a positive impact on perceptions of social acceptance and social inclusion regardless of relationship status [ 47 , 63 , 66 , 67 ]. For example, Riggle and colleagues [ 47 ] examined perceptions of sexual minority individuals in the U.S. during the period in which same-sex couples had equal marriage rights in some, but not all, U.S. states. Sexual minorities who resided in states with equal marriage rights reported less identity concealment, vigilance, and isolation than their peers in states without equal marriage rights. Similarly, using data from the longitudinal Nurses’ Health Study in the U.S., Charlton and colleagues [ 68 ] examined potential positive impacts of equal marriage rights on sexual identity disclosure. They found that participants living in states with any form of legal recognition of same-sex relationships (inclusive of marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships) were 30% more likely than those is states without legal recognition to consistently disclose a sexual minority identity across survey waves [ 68 ].

Researchers have documented ambivalence among sexual minority adults regarding the institution of marriage and whether same-sex marriage would impact other forms of structural or interpersonal stigma. Sexual minority participants in several studies expressed concern about continued interpersonal stigma based on sexual or gender identity, the limitations of marriage as a vehicle for providing benefits and protections for economically marginalized LGBTQ+ individuals, and the possibility that an increased focus on marriage would contribute to devaluing unmarried same-sex relationships [ 12 , 13 , 62 , 69 , 70 ]. Studies also documented concerns about marriage being inherently linked to heteronormative expectations and about assimilation to heterosexist cultural norms [ 60 , 69 , 71 ]. These concerns were summarized by Hull [ 69 ]: “The fact that LGBTQ respondents favor marriage more in principle (as a right) than in practice (as an actual social institution) suggests that marriage holds multiple meanings for them” (p. 1360).

Five studies explicitly examined racial/ethnic minority identities as a factor in individuals’ perceptions of same-sex marriage; one qualitative study focused exclusively on Black individuals in the U.S. [ 72 ] and the other four examined differences by race/ethnicity [ 64 , 66 , 67 , 73 ]. McGuffy [ 72 ] conducted in-depth interviews with 102 Black LGBT individuals about their perceptions of marriage as a civil rights issue before and after same-sex marriage was recognized nationally in the U.S. The study found that intersecting identities and experiences of discrimination related to racism, homophobia, and transphobia influenced personal views of marriage. For example, although most participants were supportive of equal marriage rights as a public good, many felt that the emphasis on marriage in social movement efforts overlooked other important issues, such as racism, economic injustice, and transgender marginalization.

The four other studies examining racial/ethnic differences in perceptions about whether equal marriage rights facilitated inclusion or reduced interpersonal stigma yielded mixed results. One found that residing in states with equal marriage rights was associated with greater feelings of acceptance among sexual minorities; however, White sexual minorities reported greater feelings of inclusion than participants of color [ 66 ]. By contrast, in a quasi-experiment in which SMW in a midwestern state were interviewed pre- or post- passage of civil union legislation, those interviewed after the legislation reported lower levels of stigma consciousness and perceived discrimination than those interviewed before the legislation; however, effects were stronger among SMW of color than among White SMW [ 64 ]. In a study of unmarried men in same-sex male couples, Hispanic/Latino men were more likely than non-Latino White participants to report perceived gains in social inclusion after equal marriage rights were extended to all U.S. states [ 67 ]. However, men who reported higher levels of minority stress (enacted and anticipated stigma as well as internalized homophobia) were less likely to show improvement in perceptions of social inclusion. Lee [ 73 ], using data from a national Social Justice Sexuality Project survey, found no statistical differences in Black, White and Latinx sexual minorities’ perceptions that equal marriage rights for same-sex couples had a moderate to major impact on their lives. In analyses restricted to Black participants, individuals with higher level of sexual minority identity salience reported significantly higher importance of equal marriage rights. Lee suggests that same-sex marriage was perceived by many study participants as a tool to gain greater acceptance in the Black community because being married is a valued social status.

Couple level impacts.

We identified 15 studies that focused on couples as the unit of analysis. Findings from studies of the extension of equal marriage rights in U.S. states suggest positive impacts among same-sex couples, including access to financial and legal benefits as well as interpersonal validation, such as perceptions of being viewed as a “real” couple and increased social inclusion [ 12 , 59 , 63 , 74 , 75 ]. Furthermore, couples in several studies described the potential positive impacts of legal recognition of their relationship on their ability to make joint decisions about life issues, such as having children and medical care [ 75 ]. Couples also described having a greater sense of security associated with financial (e.g., taxes, healthcare) and legal (e.g., hospital visitation) benefits and reduced stress in areas such as travel and immigration [ 75 ]. Collectively, these findings suggest that marriage rights were perceived to imbue individuals in same-sex relationships with a sense of greater security, stability, and safety due to the legal recognition and social legitimization of same-sex couples. Although equal marriage rights were perceived as an important milestone in obtaining civil rights and reducing institutional discrimination, concerns about and experiences of interpersonal stigma persisted [ 76 – 78 ]. The social context of legal same-sex marriage may create stress for couples who elect to not marry. For example, in a study of 27 committed, unmarried same-sex couples interviewed after the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Obergefell, couples who chose not to marry described feeling that their relationships were less supported and perceived as less committed [ 79 ].

Reports from the CUPPLES study, a national longitudinal study of same-sex couples in the U.S. from 2001 to 2014, provided a unique opportunity to examine the impact of different forms of legal recognition of same-sex relationships. In wave three of the study during 2013–2014, open-ended qualitative questions were added to explore how individuals in long-term committed partnerships perceived the extension of equal marriage rights in many U.S. states. Themes included awe about the historic achievement of a long-awaited civil rights goal, celebration and elation, and affirmation of minority sexual identity and relationships, but also fears of backlash against sexual minority rights [ 80 ]. Some individuals who divorced after institutionalization of the right to same-sex marriage reported shame, guilt, and disappointment—given that they and others had fought so hard for equal marriage rights [ 81 ].

Studies outside the U.S. have also found evidence of positive impacts of legal recognition of same-sex couple relationships (e.g., increased social recognition and social support), as well as potential concerns [ 82 – 86 ]. For example, in a study of couples from the first cohort of same-sex couples to legally marry in Canada, participants described marriage as providing them with language to describe their partner that was more socially understood and helping to decrease homophobic attitudes among the people around them [ 83 ]. Some couples said they could fully participate in society and that marriage normalized their lives and allowed them to “live more publicly.” Couples also discussed the safety, security, and increased commitment that came from marriage, and some felt that marriage opened up previously unavailable or unimagined opportunities, such as becoming parents. However, some participants noted that their marriage caused disjuncture in relationships with their family of origin, as marriage made the relationship feel too real to family members and made their sexual identities more publicly visible.

Family level impacts.

Seventeen studies examined the impact of equal marriage rights on sexual minority individuals’ or couples’ relationships with their families of origin. Although these studies predominately used cross-sectional survey designs, one longitudinal study included individuals in both different-sex and same-sex relationships before and after the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended marriage rights to all states [ 44 ]. This study found that support from family members increased following national legalization of same-sex marriage [ 44 ]. A cross-sectional online survey of 556 individuals with same-sex partners in Massachusetts (the first U.S. state to extend equal marriage rights to same-sex couples), found that greater family support and acceptance of same-sex couples who married was associated with a stronger overall sense of social acceptance [ 66 ].

Other cross-sectional surveys found mixed perceptions of family support and feelings of social acceptance. For example, a study of 357 participants in long-term same-sex relationships found that perceived social support from family did not vary by state-level marriage rights or marital status [ 47 ]. However, living in a state with same-sex marriage rights was associated with feeling less isolated. The finding of no differences in perceived support might be partly explained by the fact that the sample included only couples in long-term relationships; older, long-term couples may rely less on support from their family of origin than younger couples [ 12 ].

In studies (n = 6) that included dyadic interviews with same-sex married couples [ 74 , 79 , 85 , 87 – 89 ], participants described a wide range of family members’ reactions to their marriage. These reactions, which emerged after same-sex marriage legalization, were typically described by couples as profoundly impactful. Couples who perceived increased family support and acceptance described these changes as triumphant [ 85 ], transformative [ 88 ], and validating [ 74 , 87 ]. Conversely, some same-sex couples reported feeling hurt and betrayed when familial reactions were negative or when reactions among family members were divided [ 85 , 87 , 89 ]. Findings from these and other studies suggest that if certain family members were accepting or rejecting prior to marriage, they tended to remain so after equal marriage rights and/or the couple’s marriage [ 61 , 74 , 90 , 91 ]. In some cases, family members were perceived as tolerating the same-sex relationship but disapproving of same-sex marriage [ 85 , 90 ].

Findings from studies of married sexual minority people suggest that family (especially parental) disapproval was a challenge in the decision to get married [ 92 ], possibly because disclosure of marriage plans by same-sex couples frequently disrupted family “privacy rules” and long-time patterns of sexual identity concealment within families or social networks [ 87 ]. In a few studies, same-sex partners perceived that their marriage gave their relationship more legitimacy in the eyes of some family members, leading to increased support and inclusion [ 61 , 66 , 89 – 91 ]. Further, findings from two studies suggested that participating in same-sex weddings gave family members the opportunity to demonstrate support and solidarity [ 87 , 93 ].

Two qualitative studies collected data from family members of same-sex couples. In one, heterosexual siblings (all of whom were in different-sex marriages) described a range of reactions to marriage equality—from support for equal marriage rights to disapproval [ 80 ]. The other study interviewed sexual minority migrants to sexual minority friendly countries in Europe who were married and/or raising children with a same-sex partner, and these migrant’s parents who lived in Central and Eastern European countries that prohibited same-sex marriage. Parents found it difficult to accept their adult child’s same-sex marriage, but the presence of grandchildren helped to facilitate acceptance [ 94 ].

Community level impacts.

Twelve studies in this review examined the community-level impacts of same-sex marriage. These studies focused on community level impacts from two perspectives: impacts of equal marriage rights on LGBTQ+ communities, and the impacts of equal marriage rights on LGBTQ+ individuals’ interactions with their local communities or extended social networks.

LGBTQ+ communities . A prominent theme among these studies was that marriage is beneficial to LGBTQ+ communities because it provides greater protection, recognition, and acceptance of sexual minorities, their families, and their relationships—even beyond the immediate impact on any individual and their relationship or marriage [ 12 , 62 , 89 , 95 ]. Despite these perceived benefits, studies have found that some sexual minority adults view marriage as potentially harmful to LGBTQ+ communities because of concerns about increased assimilation and mainstreaming of LGBTQ+ identities [ 12 , 50 , 62 ], stigmatizing unmarried relationships [ 62 ], and weakening of unique and valued strengths of LGBTQ+ culture [ 12 ]. For example, Bernstein, Harvey, and Naples [ 96 ] interviewed 52 Australian LGBTQ+ activists and legislators who worked alongside activists for equal marriage rights. These authors described the “assimilationist dilemma” faced by activists: a concern that gaining acceptance into the mainstream societal institution of marriage would lessen the salience of LGBTQ+ identity and ultimately diminish the richness and strength of LGBTQ+ communities. Another downside of the focus on marriage as a social movement goal was the concern about reinforcing negative heteronormative aspects of marriage rather than challenging them [ 95 ].

Four studies explicitly examined possible community level impacts of same-sex marriage. In a mixed-methods study with 115 LGBTQ+ individuals in Massachusetts, participants reported believing that increased acceptance and social inclusion as a result of equal marriage rights might lessen reliance on LGBTQ+-specific activism, events, activities, and venues for social support [ 13 ]. However, a majority of study participants (60%) reported participating in LGBTQ+-specific events, activities, or venues “regularly.” A few studies found evidence of concerns that the right to marry could result in marriage being more valued than other relationship configurations [ 12 , 62 , 79 ].

Local community contexts and extended social networks . Studies examining the impact of same-sex marriage on sexual minority individuals’ interactions with their extended social networks and in local community contexts yielded mixed results. In an interview study with 19 same-sex couples living in the Netherlands, Badgett [ 66 ] found that LGBTQ+ people experienced both direct and indirect increases in social inclusion in their communities and extended social networks as a result of equal marriage rights. For example, direct increases in social inclusion included people making supportive comments to the couple and attending their marriage ceremonies; examples of indirect increases included same-sex spouses being incorporated into family networks [ 66 ]. Other studies found mixed or no change in support for LGBTQ+ people and their relationships. Kennedy, Dalla, and Dreesman [ 61 ] collected survey data from 210 married LGBTQ+ individuals in midwestern U.S. states, half of whom were living in states with equal marriage rights at the time of data collection. Most participants did not perceive any change in support from their community/social network following legalization of same-sex marriage; other participants reported an increase or mixed support from friends and co-workers. Similarly, Wootton and colleagues interviewed 20 SMW from 15 U.S. states and found positive, neutral, and negative impacts of same-sex marriage on their interactions in work and community contexts [ 50 ]. Participants perceived increased positivity about LGBTQ+ issues and more accepting attitudes within their extended social networks and local communities, but also reported hearing negative comments about sexual minority people more frequently and experiencing continued sexual orientation-based discrimination and stigma [ 50 ]. Many SMW reported feeling safer and having more positive conversations after Obergefell, but also continued to have concerns about being out at work as a sexual minority person [ 50 ].

Two studies examined the experiences of LGBTQ+ people in U.S. states in which same-sex marriage restrictions were decided by voters through ballot measures. These studies documented mixed impacts on participants’ interactions with extended social networks and community. Maisel and Fingerhut [ 28 ] surveyed 354 sexual minority adults in California immediately before the vote to restrict recognition of marriage to one man and one woman in the state (Proposition 8) and found that about one-third experienced interactions with social network members that were positive, whereas just under one-third were negative, and the rest were either mixed or neutral. Overall, sexual minority people reported more support than conflict with extended social network members and heterosexual community members over the ballot measure, with friends providing the most support [ 28 ]. Social support and solidarity from extended social network members in the face of ballot measures to restrict marriage recognition were also reported in an interview study of 57 same-sex couples residing in one of seven U.S. states that had passed marriage restriction amendments in 2006 [ 97 ]. However, some LGBTQ+ people also experienced condemnation and avoidance in their extended social networks [ 97 ].

Societal level impacts.

Sixteen studies examined ways that same-sex marriage influenced societal attitudes about sexual minority individuals or contributed to additional shifts in policies protecting the rights of sexual minority individuals. Findings suggested that the right of same-sex couples to marry had a positive influence on the political and socio-cultural context of sexual minorities’ lives. For example, changes in laws may influence social attitudes or result in LGBTQ positive policy diffusion across states (jurisdictions). There is debate over whether legal changes, such as equal marriage rights, create or are simply reflective of changes in social attitudes toward a group or a social issue [ 98 ]. Flores and Barclay [ 98 ] theorize four different socio-political responses to changes in marriage laws: backlash, legitimacy, polarization, and consensus. Some scholars argue that changes in law are unlikely to impact social attitudes (consensus), while others argue that legal changes influence the political and social environment that shapes social attitudes. Possible effects range from decreased support for sexual minorities and attempts to rescind rights (backlash) to greater support for the rights of sexual minorities and possible future expansion of rights and protections (legitimacy).

Findings from research generally suggest a positive relationship between same-sex marriage and public support for the overall rights of sexual minorities (legitimacy), and mixed results related to changes in mass attitudes (consensus) [ 98 – 106 ]. For example, in a panel study in Iowa before and after a state Supreme Court ruling in favor of equal marriage rights, Kreitzer and colleagues found that the change in law modified registered voters’ views of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage and that some respondents felt “pressure” to modify or increase their expressed support [ 102 ]. Similarly, Flores and Barclay [ 98 ] found that people in a state with equal marriage rights showed a greater reduction in anti-gay attitudes than people in a state without equal marriage rights. Studies based on data from European countries also found that more positive attitudes toward sexual minorities were associated with equal marriage rights; improvements in attitudes were not evident in countries without equal marriage rights [ 9 , 105 , 106 ].

There is some evidence to support the third possible socio-political response to changes in marriage laws in Flores and Barclay’s model: increased polarization of the general public’s attitudes toward sexual minorities. Perrin, Smith, and colleagues [ 107 ], using successive-independent samples study of conservatives, moderates, and progressives across the U.S. found no overall changes in opinions attitudes about sexual minorities immediately after the Supreme Court decision extending equal marriage rights to all same-sex couples in the U.S. However, analyses by subgroup found that those who were conservative expressed more prejudice toward gay men and lesbians, less support for same-sex marriage, and less support for LGB civil rights immediately after the decision. Similarly, drawing on data from approximately one million respondents in the U.S. who completed implicit and explicit measures of bias against gay men and lesbian women (Project Implicit), Ofosu and colleagues [ 100 ] found that implicit bias decreased sharply following Obergefell. However, changes in attitudes were moderated by state laws; respondents in states that already had equal marriage rights for same-sex couples demonstrated decreased bias whereas respondents in states that did not yet have equal marriage rights evidenced increased bias [ 100 ]. Using data from the World Values Survey (1989–2014) in European countries, Redman [ 103 ] found that equal marriage rights were associated with increases in positive opinions about sexual minorities, but that the increase was driven largely by those who already held positive views.

Little support has been found for the hypothesis that the extension of equal marriage rights would be followed by a backlash of sharp negative shifts in mass attitudes and public policy [ 98 , 108 , 109 ]. For example, a general population survey in one relatively conservative U.S. state (Nebraska) found public support for same-sex marriage was higher after the Supreme Court ruling than before, suggesting no backlash in public opinion [ 108 ]. Similarly, Bishin and colleagues [ 109 ], using both an online survey experiment and analysis of data from a U.S. public opinion poll (National Annenberg Election Studies) before and after three relevant policy events, found little change in public opinion in response to simulated or actual policy changes.

Although equal marriage rights confer parental recognition rights, there are still legal challenges and disparate rulings and interpretations about some family law issues [ 77 , 110 , 111 ]. For example, some states in the U.S. have treated the parental rights of same-sex couples differently than those of different-sex (presumed heterosexual) couples. Both members of a same-sex couple have traditionally not been automatically recognized as parents of a child born or adopted within the relationship. However, the presumptions of parenthood after same-sex marriage was legalized have forced states to treat both members of same-sex couples as parents irrespective of method of conception or adoption status [ 112 ]. Still, results from a cross-national study of laws, policies, and legal recognition of same-sex relationships suggests that parental rights are recognized in some jurisdictions but not others [ 111 ].

Aim 2: SMW-specific findings and differences by gender

A total of 13 studies included in this review conducted SMW-specific analyses or compared SMW and SMM’s perceptions and experiences of same-sex marriage and equal marriage rights. In studies that included only SMW [ 50 , 64 , 68 , 77 , 81 , 86 , 89 , 91 ], findings emphasized the importance of relational and interpersonal impacts of same-sex marriage. Examples include creating safety for sexual identity disclosure and visibility [ 68 , 81 ], providing legal protections in relation to partners and/or children [ 77 , 81 ], offering social validation [ 86 , 89 ], and reducing stigma in larger community contexts [ 50 , 64 ]. Relational themes centered on concerns and distress when experiencing rejection or absence of support from family members or extended social networks [ 50 , 81 , 86 , 89 , 91 ].

Two of the studies of SMW documented sexual identity and gender identity differences in interpersonal experiences associated with same-sex marriage [ 86 , 89 ]. Lannutti’s interview study of the experiences of 26 married or engaged SMW couples with different sexual identities (bisexual-lesbian couples) revealed how the right to marry made them feel more connected to LGBTQ+ communities through activism and being “counted” as a same-sex married couple. However, same-sex marriage made some bisexual women feel more invisible within LGBTQ+ communities [ 89 ]. Scott and Theron [ 86 ] found that married lesbian women and cisgender women partners of transmasculine individuals (i.e., masculine-identifying transgender individuals) faced different challenges as they navigated through gendered social expectations and made choices about conforming or rejecting heteronormativity.

Only five of the studies focusing on psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights explicitly examined potential differences by sex [ 28 , 66 , 73 , 76 , 95 ]. Some studies found perceptions of greater social inclusion [ 66 ], or feelings of ambivalence (simultaneously holding positive, negative, and critical perspectives about marriage as an institution) [ 95 ] that were similar among SMW and SMM. Maisel and Fingerhut’s study of consequences of a state-level campaign to restrict marriage rights [ 28 ] showed that SMW and SMM experienced similar negative impacts on personal well-being and interactions with extended social networks. However, Lee found that, compared with Black SMM, Black SMW perceived same-sex marriage to have a larger impact on their lives [ 73 ]. Other studies found that SMW were more likely than SMM to report positive perceptions of same-sex marriage, possibly because they are more likely than SMM to have children and to be concerned about parental protections [ 73 , 95 ]. SMW and SMM may be differentially impacted by interpersonal stigma despite equal marriage rights. For example, one study found that SMW experienced higher levels of distress than SMM when their relationships were not treated as equal to heterosexuals’ [ 76 ].

Overall, findings from this scoping review suggest that psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights among sexual minorities are apparent at all levels of our social-ecological and stigma framework. Sexual minority-specific stigma occurs on multiple levels (e.g., individual, interpersonal, and structural simultaneously and changes in social policies have cascading effects on sexual minority individuals’ experiences at each level. Generally, equal marriage rights had a positive impact on perceptions of social acceptance and social inclusion for sexual minority individuals, couples, and the LGBTQ+ community as a whole. However, many studies described mixed, ambivalent, or complicated perceptions of same-sex marriage, as well as stigmatizing interactions that were unaffected or exacerbated by equal marriage rights.

Although research does not unequivocally suggest the presence of a backlash in public opinion after equal marriage rights, there has been an increase in laws and policies at the U.S. state and federal levels that explicitly allow for religious-belief-based denial of services to sexual minority individuals and same-sex couples. For example, by 2017, 12 states in the U.S. enacted laws permitting the denial of services (e.g., allowing government officials to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses, allowing magistrates to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, and permitting adoption and child welfare agencies to refuse same-sex couples’ adoption or fostering children) based on religious beliefs [ 113 ]. Research has documented negative health and psychological outcomes among sexual minorities living in U.S. states with policies that permit denial of services to sexual or gender minorities [ 114 , 115 ] and in states that do not have legal protections against discrimination [ 38 , 116 , 117 ]. Additional research is needed to examine how changes in local or national laws impact the health and well-being of sexual and gender minorities—particularly over the long term.

Gaps & future research needs

Research is limited in terms of examining how same-sex marriage may differentially impact sexual minority individuals based on sex, gender identity, or race/ethnicity. Only 14 studies included in this review addressed the psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage among SMW. More research is needed to understand the unique experiences and psychosocial impact of same-sex marriage for SMW and SMM. Further, many study samples were largely homogenous and included an overwhelming majority of White participants. The few studies with substantial sample sizes of people of color, and that compared people of color to White people, found differences by race in perceived impact of same-sex marriage [ 64 , 67 , 73 ], demonstrating the need for additional work in this area.

There were also very few studies in this review that explored differences by sexual identity (e.g., monosexual vs. plurisexual), gender identity (e.g., transgender vs. cisgender), gender expression (e.g., masculine vs. feminine presentation), or differences based on sex/gender of participants’ partners. Although transgender and nonbinary individuals were included in eight studies, five provided only descriptive information and only three described any unique findings from transgender study participants. For example, McGuffey [ 72 ] found that transgender individuals who identified as heterosexual described same-sex marriage rights as less relevant than issues of gender identity and expression and Hull found that cisgender sexual minority men generally expressed more enthusiasm about marriage than both cisgender women and transgender individuals [ 69 ]. Transgender and nonbinary individuals who perceive positive impacts of equal marriage rights may still experience challenges in navigating heteronormative and cisnormative expectations [ 72 , 86 ]. Other qualitative studies documented concerns that LGBTQ+ advocacy efforts, once marriage rights were secured, might fail to address rights and protections for transgender and nonbinary individuals [ 62 , 69 ]. Future studies that include the voices of transgender and nonbinary individuals are needed to better understand perceptions across both sexual and gender identities [ 118 ].

There is limited research on immediate and extended family members’ perceptions of equal marriage rights. There is also a need for prospective studies that examine whether familial acceptance increases over time. Many studies did not account for differences in LGBTQ+ identity salience and connection to LGBTQ+ and other communities, which may influence differences in perceptions and reactions to same-sex marriage.

The majority of studies (43 of 59) we reviewed were conducted in the U.S. Eleven of these collected data after Obergefell (June 25, 2015). Only two used longitudinal research designs that included data collection before and after national same-sex marriage legalization [ 44 , 107 ]. The legal and social landscapes have changed since this time and there is a need for re-assessment of the impact of same-sex marriage over multiple future timepoints.

Limitations

Although this scoping review used a systematic approach and, to our knowledge, is novel in its focus on impact of equal marriage rights on sexual minorities’ personal lives, interpersonal relationships, and social/community contexts, we acknowledge several limitations. We did not conduct a search of grey literature (e.g., reports, policy literature, working papers) or books and, consequently, likely excluded some scholarly work aligned with our focus. Our inclusion criteria of only peer-reviewed studies may have led us to exclude dissertations that focus on emerging areas of research, such as differences by gender identity, sexual identity, or race and ethnicity. As with all scoping reviews, studies may have been missed because of the search strategy. For example, it is possible that relevant studies were indexed in databases not used in our review. We also restricted our review to English language literature, excluding potentially relevant studies published in other languages. Studies in other languages may provide useful insights from other countries where English is not widely used. Although we focused exclusively on empirical studies, we did not assess the quality of the studies. Findings of the review are also limited by the collective body of research questions, designs, and analyses that have been pursued. For example, as noted above, few studies explored psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage among SMW or explored differences by sex; consequently we were limited in our ability to address our second research aim.

This scoping review identified and described psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults and explored potential SMW-specific experiences and differences by sex. Our results highlight four points. First, equal marriage rights are associated with a wide range of positive impacts on the psychological and social well-being of sexual minority adults. Second, the potential positive impacts of equal marriage rights are amplified or weakened by the presence or absence of stigma in interpersonal interactions and in the larger political and social environment. Third, although there is a growing body of global research on the impact of same-sex marriage, most studies have been conducted in the U.S. Cross-cultural studies can improve understanding of individual, interpersonal, and community level impacts of same-sex marriage in different cultural contexts. Fourth, given indications of differences between SMW and SMM in perceived impact of same-sex marriage, there is a need for research that examines the specific perspectives of SMW and that explores possible differences in perspectives and experiences by sex. Research is also needed to understand differences based on race/ethnicity, gender identity, and age. The right of same-sex couples to marry does not merely address the concerns of sexual minorities, it aims to right a far bigger wrong: the exclusion of some individuals from one of the most important institutions in social life.

Supporting information

S1 table. articles included in scoping review on the psychosocial impact of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.s001

S1 Checklist. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.s002

S1 Text. Definitions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.s003

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Karen F. Trocki for providing input during the initial conceptualization of this project. Our thanks to Carol A. Pearce, MLIS, who helped with finding records, removing duplicates, title and abstract review, and data management.

• 1. Pew Research Center. Same-sex marriage around the world. Fact Sheet [Internet]. 2019; (Oct 28). Available from: https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/gay-marriage-around-the-world/ .
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 3. Herek GM. Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States: A conceptual framework. In: Hope DA, Editor. Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities. New York: Springer; 2009. p. 65–111.
• 10. Lannutti PJ. Experiencing same-sex marriage: Individual, couples, and social networks. New York: Peter Lang; 2014.
• 35. Umberson D, Kroeger RA. Gender, marriage, and health for same-sex and different-sex couples: The future keeps arriving. In: McHale SM, King V, Van Hook J, Booth A, editors. Gender and Couple Relationships. National Symposium on Family Issues, Vol 6. Switzerland: Springer International; 2016. p. 189–213.
• 37. Carpenter C, Eppink ST, Gonzales Jr G, McKay T. Effects of Access to Legal Same-Sex Marriage on Marriage and Health: Evidence from BRFSS. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2018. Contract No.: No. w24651.
• 113. Movement Advancement Project. Equality Maps: Religious Exemption Laws 2020 [Available from: https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/religious_exemption_laws .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Challenges and Opportunities for Research on Same-Sex Relationships

Research on same-sex relationships has informed policy debates and legal decisions that greatly affect American families, yet the data and methods available to scholars studying same-sex relationships have been limited. In this article the authors review current approaches to studying same-sex relationships and significant challenges for this research. After exploring how researchers have dealt with these challenges in prior studies, the authors discuss promising strategies and methods to advance future research on same-sex relationships, with particular attention given to gendered contexts and dyadic research designs, quasi-experimental designs, and a relationship biography approach. Innovation and advances in the study of same-sex relationships will further theoretical and empirical knowledge in family studies more broadly and increase understanding of different-sex as well as same-sex relationships.

One of the most high-stakes debates in the United States today concerns whether and how same-sex relationships influence the health and well-being of individuals, families, and even society. Social scientists have conducted studies that compare same- and different-sex relationships across a range of outcomes (see reviews in Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007 ; Rothblum, 2009 ), and state and federal judiciaries have drawn on this evidence to make critical legal decisions that affect same-sex partners and their children (e.g., American Sociological Association, 2013 ; DeBoer v. Snyder, 2014 ; Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 ). Therefore, it is critical that family scholars develop a scientifically driven agenda to advance a coordinated and informed program of research in this area.

Advances in theory and research on marriage and family are inherently shaped by the changing contours of family life over time. For example, during the past decade, increases in the number of people who cohabit outside of marriage have been accompanied by vast improvement in the methods and data used to study cohabiting couples ( Kroeger & Smock, 2014 ). A number of factors point to similarly significant advances in data and research on same-sex relationships in the near future. First, the number of individuals in same-sex unions is significant; recent data from the U.S. Census indicate that about 650,000 same-sex couples reside in the United States, with 114,100 of those couples in legal marriages and another 108,600 in some other form of legally recognized partnership ( Gates, 2013b ). Second, the increasing number of states that legally recognize same-sex marriage (now at 19 states and the District of Columbia, and likely more by the time this article is published), and the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013 suggest there will be many more legally married same-sex couples in the years ahead. Third, growing efforts by the federal government to identify same-sex couples in U.S. Census counts and national surveys (e.g., the National Health Interview Survey) and to fund research on sexual minority populations mean that researchers will have new sources of data with which to study same-sex relationships in the future.

We organize this article into three main sections. First, we provide a brief overview of current research and data on same-sex relationships, distinguishing between studies that examine individuals in same-sex relationships and those that examine same-sex couples (i.e., dyads). These two approaches are often conflated, yet they address different kinds of questions. For example, studies of individuals can assess the health benefits of being in a same-sex relationship by comparing individuals in same-sex relationships with individuals in other relationship statuses, whereas a focus on couples allows researchers to examine how same-sex partners compare with different-sex partners in influencing each other’s health. In the second section we consider common methodological challenges encountered in studies of same-sex relationships as well as strategies for addressing these challenges, with particular attention to identifying individuals in same-sex relationships and sample size concerns, addressing gender and sexual identity, recruiting respondents, and choosing comparison groups for studies of same-sex relationships. In the third section we discuss promising strategies for future research on same-sex relationships, with a focus on gendered relational contexts and dyadic research designs, quasi-experimental designs, and a relationship biography approach.

We hope that this article, by drawing on multiple perspectives and methods in the study of same-sex relationships, will advance future research on same-sex unions. Although we discuss details of specific studies, the present article is not intended to be a comprehensive review of research findings on same-sex relationships; our primary focus is on data concerns and methodological strategies. We refer readers to several outstanding reviews of research on same-sex relationships (see, e.g., Kurdek, 2005 ; Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013 ; Patterson, 2000 ; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007 ; Rothblum, 2009 ).

Data and Methods: General Approaches

In the face of challenges to research on same-sex relationships, including the past failure of federally supported data collections to include measures that clearly identify same-sex relationships, scholars have been creative in data collection and methodological strategies for research. In most analyses that use probability samples and quantitative methods, social scientists analyze data from individuals in same-sex relationships (e.g., Joyner, Manning, & Bogle, 2013 ), but a number of nonprobability studies (qualitative and quantitative) include data from partners within couples (e.g., Moore, 2008 ; Totenhagen, Butler, & Ridley, 2012 ). Both approaches are essential to advancing our understanding of same-sex relationships.

Research on Individuals

Studies on individuals in same-sex relationships, especially those in which nationally representative data are used, have been essential in evaluating similarities and differences between individuals in same-sex relationships and different-sex relationships. For major data sets that can be used to study individuals in same-sex relationships, readers may turn to several overviews that address sample size and measures that are available to identify those in same-sex relationships (see Black, Gates, Sanders, & Taylor, 2000 ; Carpenter & Gates, 2008 ; Gates & Badgett, 2006 ; Institute of Medicine, 2011 ). These data sets have produced information on the demographic characteristics ( Carpenter & Gates, 2008 ; Gates, 2013b ) and the health and economic well-being of individuals in same-sex relationships ( Badgett, Durso, & Schneebaum, 2013 ; Denney, Gorman, & Barrera, 2013 ; Gonzales & Blewett, 2014 ; Liu, Reczek, & Brown, 2013 ). For example, Wight and colleagues ( Wight, LeBlanc, & Badgett, 2013 ) analyzed data from the California Health Interview Survey and found that being married was associated with lower levels of psychological distress for individuals in same-sex relationships as well as those in different-sex relationships. Given the decades of research showing the many benefits of marriage for men and women in different-sex relationships ( Waite, 1995 ), research on the possible benefits of marriage for individuals in same-sex relationships is an important endeavor. However, in contrast to research on different-sex partnerships, scholars lack longitudinal data from probability samples that enable analysis of the consequences of same-sex relationships for health outcomes over time.

Most probability samples used to study individuals in same-sex relationships have not been designed to assess relationship dynamics or other psychosocial variables (e.g., social support, stress) that influence relationships; thus, these data sets do not include measures that are most central to the study of close relationships, and they do not include measures specific to same-sex couples (e.g., minority stressors, legal policies) that may help explain any group differences that emerge. As a result, most qualitative and quantitative studies addressing questions about same-sex relationship dynamics have relied on smaller, nonprobability samples. Although these studies are limited in generalizability, a number of findings have been replicated across data sets (including longitudinal and cross-sectional qualitative and quantitative designs). For example, studies consistently indicate that same-sex partners share household labor more equally than do different-sex partners and that individuals in same- and different-sex relationships report similar levels of relationship satisfaction and conflict (see reviews in Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007 ; Peplau, Fingerhut, & Beals, 2004 ). One nationally representative longitudinal data set, How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST), includes a question about relationship quality, and is unique in that it oversamples Americans in same-sex couples ( Rosenfeld, Thomas, & Falcon, 2011 & 2014 ). The HCMST data make it possible to address questions about relationship stability over time, finding, for example, that same-sex and different-sex couples have similar break-up rates once marital status is taken into account ( Rosenfeld 2014 ).

Research on Same-Sex Couples

Data sets that include information from both partners in a relationship (i.e., dyadic data) allow researchers to look within relationships to compare partners’ behaviors, reports, and perceptions across a variety of outcomes. Therefore, dyadic data have been used to advance our understanding of same-sex partner dynamics. Researchers have analyzed dyadic data from same-sex partners using diverse methods, including surveys ( Rothblum, Balsam, & Solomon, 2011a ), in-depth interviews ( Reczek & Umberson, 2012 ), ethnographies ( Moore, 2008 ), and narrative analysis ( Rothblum, Balsam, & Solomon, 2011b ). A few nonprobability samples that include dyadic data have also incorporated a longitudinal design (e.g., Kurdek, 2006 ; Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2004 ).

In some dyadic studies data have been collected from both partners separately, focusing on points of overlap and differences between partners’ accounts, studying such issues as the symbolic meaning of legal unions for same-sex couples ( Reczek, Elliott, & Umberson, 2009 ; Rothblum et al., 2011b ), parenting experiences ( Goldberg, Kinkler, Richardson, & Downing, 2011 ), intimacy dynamics ( Umberson, Thomeer, & Lodge, in press ), interracial relationship dynamics ( Steinbugler, 2010 ), partners’ interactions around health behavior ( Reczek & Umberson, 2012 ), and relationship satisfaction and closeness ( Totenhagen et al., 2012 ). In contrast, other studies have collected data from partners simultaneously, through joint interviews, experiments, or ethnographic observations, focusing on interactions between partners or partners’ collective responses. For example, researchers have used observational methods to provide unique insights into same-sex couples’ conflict styles ( Gottman, 1993 ), division of household labor ( Moore, 2008 ), and coparenting interactions ( Farr & Patterson, 2013 ).

Challenges and Strategies for Studying Same-Sex Relationships

Although current data are characterized by several limitations, this is no reason to avoid the study of same-sex relationships. Indeed, it is important to triangulate a range of qualitative and quantitative research designs and sources of data in efforts to identify consistent patterns in same-sex relationships across studies and to draw on innovative strategies that add to our knowledge of same-sex relationships. In the sections that follow we point to some specific challenges to, advances in, and strategies for research on same-sex relationships.

Identifying Individuals in Same-Sex Relationships

Researchers must accurately identify people who are in same-sex relationships if they are to produce valid results and/or allow comparison of results across studies, both of which are necessary to inform sound public policy ( Bates & DeMaio, 2013 ; DiBennardo & Gates, 2014 ). In most nonprobability studies researchers have relied on volunteer samples and respondents’ self-identification as gay or lesbian. Such samples are more likely to include individuals who are open about their sexual orientation and socioeconomically privileged ( Gates & Badgett, 2006 ). Studies that rely on probability samples (e.g., the General Social Survey, the U.S. Census) raise different concerns because these samples were not originally designed to identify people in same-sex relationships and do not directly ask about the sexual orientation or sex of partners. As a result, to identify individuals in same-sex relationships researchers have juxtaposed information about sex of household head, relationship of head of household to other household members, and sex of those household members, a strategy that can result in substantial misidentification of individuals in same- and different-sex relationships (see discussions in Bates & DeMaio, 2013 , and DiBennardo & Gates, 2014 ; for strategies to adjust for misidentification, see Gates & Cook, 2011 ).

A particularly problematic approach for identifying individuals in same-sex relationships is the use of proxy reports . This approach assumes that children (or other proxies) have valid knowledge of other persons’ (e.g., parents’) sexual and relationship histories and is highly likely to produce invalid or biased results ( Perrin, Cohen, & Caren, 2013 ). For example, a recent study ( Regnerus, 2012 ), which purportedly showed adverse effects of same-sex parents on children, has been widely criticized for using retrospective proxy reports from adult children to identify a parent as having ever been involved in a same-sex relationship (for a critique, see Perrin et al., 2013 ). Although the findings from this study have been largely discredited ( Perrin et al., 2013 ), the results have been used as evidence in legal proceedings geared toward forestalling same-sex partners’ efforts to adopt children or legally marry (e.g., American Sociological Association, 2013 ; DeBoer v. Snyder, 2014 ; Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 ). This use of social science research highlights the importance of adhering to best practices for research on same-sex relationships (which several U.S.-based surveys are implementing), including directly asking respondents if they have a same-sex partner and allowing for multiple response options for union status (e.g., legal marriage, registered domestic partnership, civil union, cohabitation, and living-apart-together relationships; Bates & DeMaio, 2013 ; Festy, 2008 ).

Sample Size

An additional challenge is the small number of people in same-sex relationships, making it difficult to recruit substantial numbers of respondents and to achieve racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity in samples of persons in same-sex relationships ( Black et al., 2000 ; Carpenter & Gates, 2008 ; for additional strategies, see Cheng & Powell, 2005 ). One strategy to deal with small samples of individuals in same-sex relationships has been to pool data across years or data sets to obtain a sufficient number of cases for analysis (e.g., Denney et al., 2013 ; Liu et al., 2013 ; Wienke & Hill, 2009 ). For example, using pooled data from the National Health Interview Survey, Liu and colleagues (2013) found that socioeconomic status suppressed the health disadvantage of same-sex cohabitors compared with different-sex married adults. Other studies have pooled data across different states to achieve larger and more representative samples, focusing especially on states with higher concentrations of same-sex couples. For example, Blosnich and Bossarte (2009) aggregated 3 years of state-level data from 24 states to compare rates and consequences of intimate partner violence) in same- and different-sex relationships and found that victims of intimate partner violence report poorer health outcomes regardless of sex of perpetrator.

Gender and Sexual Identity

Since the publication of Jessie Bernard’s (1982) classic work on “his” and “her” marriage, social scientists have identified gender as a driving predictor of relationship experiences ( Umberson, Chen, House, Hopkins, & Slaten, 1996 ). Studies of same- and different-sex relationships usually rely on self-reports of sex/gender that allow for one of two choices: male or female. But current scholarship highlights the need to go beyond the male–female binary to take into account transgender and transsexual identities by measuring sex assigned at birth and current sex or gender ( Center of Excellence for Transgender Health, 2014 ; Pfeffer, 2010 ) and to measure both gender identity (i.e., psychological sense of self) and gender presentation (i.e., external expressions, e.g., physical appearance, clothing choices, and deepness of voice; Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013 ). This approach pushes us to think about how gender identity and presentation might shape or modify relationship experiences of partners within same- and different-sex relationships. For example, gender identity may be more important than sex in driving housework (in)equality between partners in both same- and different-sex relationships. Scholars can further consider how these aspects of gender and sexuality may vary across diverse populations.

Similarly, studies need to include questions about multiple aspects of sexuality (e.g., desires, behavior, identity) in order to capture a fuller range of diversity. For example, this would allow for the examination of differences between people in same-sex relationships who identify as bisexual and those who identify as gay or lesbian; individuals in mixed-orientation marriages (e.g., bisexual men married to heterosexual women) may experience unique difficulties and relationship strategies ( Wolkomir, 2009 ). Failing to consider gender identity and presentation as well as sexual identity and orientation may also cause researchers to misidentify some same-sex relationships and overlook important sources of diversity among same- and different-sex relationships ( Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013 ). Attention to gender identity and presentation in future research will lead to a more nuanced understanding of gendered dynamics within different- as well as same-sex relationships.

Recruitment Challenges

Recruiting people for studies of same-sex relationships poses several unique challenges beyond typical recruitment concerns. In particular, because of past discrimination, people in same-sex relationships may not trust researchers to present research findings in fair and accurate ways, keep findings confidential and anonymous, or present findings in ways that will not stigmatize same-sex couples and bolster legislation that limits the rights of same-sex partners ( McCormack, 2014 ; Meyer & Wilson, 2009 ). Recruiting both partners in same-sex couples is even more challenging; even if one partner agrees to participate in a study, past experiences of discrimination or not being “out” may lead the other partner to avoid taking part in the study.

Past strategies have included working with community partners (e.g., local lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups) to help researchers establish trust and opportunities for recruitment, in particular when recruiting more targeted samples based on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status (e.g., Meyer & Wilson, 2009 ; Moore, 2008 ). Researchers also can take advantage of information regarding the geographic distribution of same-sex couples in the United States to collect data in areas with higher concentrations of same-sex couples and racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity ( Black et al., 2000 ; Gates, 2010 ). Online recruitment may also facilitate study participation; greater anonymity and ease of participation with online surveys compared to face-to-face data collection may increase the probability that individuals in same-sex unions and same-sex couples will participate in studies ( Meyer & Wilson, 2009 ; Riggle, Rostosky, & Reedy, 2005 ).

Comparison Group Challenges

Decisions about the definition and composition of comparison groups in studies that compare same-sex relationships to different-sex relationships are critical because same-sex couples are demographically distinct from different-sex couples; individuals in same-sex couples are younger, more educated, more likely to be employed, less likely to have children, and slightly more likely to be female than individuals in different-sex couples ( Gates, 2013b ). For example, researchers may erroneously conclude that relationship dynamics differ for same- and different-sex couples when it is in fact parental status differences between same- and different-sex couples that shape relationship dynamics. Three specific comparison group considerations that create unique challenges—and opportunities—for research on same-sex relationships include (a) a shifting legal landscape, (b) parental status, and (c) unpartnered individuals.

Shifting legal landscape

As legal options have expanded for same-sex couples, more studies have compared people in same-sex marriages and civil unions (or registered domestic partnerships) with people in different-sex married partnerships (e.g., Solomon et al., 2004 ). Yet because legal options vary across states and over time, the same statuses are not available to all same-sex couples. This shifting legal landscape introduces significant challenges, in particular for scholars who attempt to compare same-sex couples with different-sex couples, because most same-sex couples have not married (or even had the option of marrying), whereas most different-sex couples have had ample opportunity to marry.

One strategy for addressing this complexity is to collect data in states that legally acknowledge same-sex partnerships. For example, Rothblum and colleagues ( Rothblum et al., 2011a ; Solomon et al., 2004 ) contacted all couples who entered civil unions in Vermont in 2000–2001, and same-sex couples who agreed to participate then nominated their siblings in either different-sex marriages or noncivil union same-sex relationships for participation in the study. This design, which could be adapted for qualitative or quantitative studies, allowed the researchers to compare three types of couples and address potentially confounding variables (e.g., cohort, socioeconomic status, social networks) by matching same-sex couples in civil unions with network members who were similar on these background variables. Gates and Badgett (2006) argued that future research comparing different legal statuses and legal contexts across states will help us better understand what is potentially unique about marriage (e.g., whether there are health benefits associated with same-sex marriage compared to same-sex cohabitation).

A related challenge is that same-sex couples in legal unions may have cohabited for many years but been in a legal union for a short time because legal union status became available only recently. This limits investigation into the implications of same-sex marriage given that marriage is conflated with relationship duration. One strategy for dealing with this is to match same- and different-sex couples in the same legal status (e.g., marriage) on total relationship duration rather than the amount of time in their current status (e.g., cohabiting, married, or other legal status; Umberson et al., in press ). An additional complication is that historical changes in legal options for persons in same-sex relationships contribute to different relationship histories across successive birth cohorts, an issue we address later, in our discussion of relationship biography and directions for future research. Future studies might also consider whether access to legal marriage influences the stability and duration of same-sex relationships, perhaps using quasi-experimental methods (also discussed below).

Parental status and kinship systems

Individuals in same-sex relationships are nested within larger kinship systems, in particular those that include children and parents, and family dynamics may diverge from patterns found for individuals in different-sex relationships ( Ocobock, 2013 ; Patterson, 2000 ; Reczek, 2014 ). For example, some studies suggest that, compared with individuals in different-sex relationships, those in same-sex relationships experience more strain and less contact with their families of origin ( Rothblum, 2009 ). Marriage holds great symbolic significance that may alter how others, including family members, view and interact with individuals in same-sex unions ( Badgett, 2009 ). Past research shows that individuals in different-sex marriages are more involved with their family of origin than are those in different-sex cohabiting unions. Future research should further explore how the transition from cohabitation to marriage alters relationships with other family members (including relationships with families of origin) for those in same-sex unions ( Ocobock, 2013 ).

Although a full discussion of data and methodological issues concerning larger kinship systems is beyond the scope of this article (see Ocobock, 2013 ; Patterson, 2000 ), we focus on one aspect of kinship—parental status—to demonstrate some important comparison group considerations. Parental status varies for same- and different-sex couples and can confound differences between these two groups as well as within groups of same-sex couples (e.g., comparing men with men to women with women). Moreover, because having children contributes to relationship stability for different-sex couples, parental status differences between same- and different-sex couples could contribute to differences in relationship stability ( Joyner et al., 2013 ). Same-sex couples are less likely than different-sex couples to be raising children, although this distinction is diminishing, albeit modestly ( Gates, 2013b ). In 2010, about 19% of same-sex couples had children under age 18 in the home, compared with about 43% of different-sex couples ( Gates, 2013b ). Same-sex partners living with children are also more likely to be female than male and tend to be more economically disadvantaged and to be from racial minority groups than same-sex couples without children ( Gates, 2013a ). Pathways to parenthood are diverse among same-sex couples (e.g., surrogacy, adoption, biological child of one partner from previous relationship), and these pathways differ by age and cohort, gender, race, and socioeconomic status, all factors that may influence parenting experiences ( Brewster, Tillman, & Jokinen-Gordon, 2014 ; Gates & Badgett, 2006 ; Patterson & Tornello, 2010 ). For example, most gay fathers over age 50 had their children within the context of heterosexual marriage, whereas most gay fathers under age 50 became fathers through foster care or adoption ( Patterson & Tornello, 2010 ). A history of different-sex marriage and divorce may influence current relationship dynamics for individuals in same-sex unions.

One strategy for addressing parental status is to match same- and different-sex comparison groups on parental status so that parents are compared with parents and nonparents are compared with nonparents (e.g., Kurdek, 2004 ). This strategy has the advantage of reducing uncontrolled-variable bias owing to parental status (for quantitative studies) and yields unique insights into the experiences of same- and different-sex parents and/or nonparents (for qualitative and quantitative studies). A second strategy for quantitative researchers is to consider parental status as potentially confounding or moderating the effects of union status on selected outcomes. For example, Denney and colleagues (2013) found that parental status is an important moderator in understanding health disparities between women in same-sex and different-sex relationships, in that having children was associated with poorer health for women in same-sex relationships than for women in different-sex relationships.

We further recommend that social scientists understand—and embrace—the diverse ways that parental status varies across union types. It is impossible to fully eliminate uncontrolled-variable bias, and we know that same-sex partners who are parents differ in other important ways from different-sex partners, in particular in terms of sociodemographic characteristics. Moreover, many same-sex partners did not have the option of becoming parents because of barriers to adoption as well as a lack of access to or the prohibitive cost of reproductive technologies, and this unique history shapes their relationship experiences ( Brewster et al., 2014 ). In fact, attempting to “control away” the experience of parental status may mask differences in the lived experiences of same- and different-sex partners. Future research should take into account cohort differences in pathways to (and probability of) parenthood for same-sex partners, in particular in connection with intimate relationship experiences (also see Biblarz & Savci, 2010 ; Brewster et al., 2014 ; Goldberg, Smith, & Kashy, 2010 ; Patterson & Riskind, 2010 ). Researchers could also compare parenthood and relationship experiences in geographic regions that differ on attitudes toward same-sex relationships and families.

Unpartnered individuals

Very few studies have compared individuals in same-sex relationships with their unpartnered counterparts, that is, single men and women with similar attractions, behaviors, and identities. Yet the comparison of partnered to unpartnered persons has led to some of the most fundamental findings about different-sex relationships, showing, for example, that married and cohabiting different-sex partners are wealthier, healthier, and live longer than the unmarried ( Waite, 1995 ). Recent quantitative studies that have considered the unpartnered as a comparison group have found that those in same-sex relationships report better health than those who are widowed, divorced, or never married ( Denney et al., 2013 ; Liu et al., 2013 ). Unfortunately, owing to a lack of information on sexual identity/orientation in most available probability data, individuals in same- and different-sex relationships have been compared with unpartnered persons regardless of the unpartnered person’s sexual orientation or relationship history. Furthermore, studies that focus on sexual orientation and health seldom consider whether such associations differ for the unpartnered versus partnered. Given the substantial evidence that close social ties are central to health and quality of life ( Umberson & Montez, 2010 ), and the relative absence of research comparing individuals in same-sex partnerships to their unpartnered counterparts, research designs that compare those in same-sex relationships to the unpartnered will provide many opportunities for future research. Data collections that focus on individuals who transition between an unpartnered status to a same-sex relationship may be particularly fruitful. For example, given different levels of social recognition and stress exposure, researchers may find that relationship formation (and dissolution) affects individuals from same- and different-sex relationships in different ways.

Future Directions for Research on Same-Sex Relationships

We now turn to three strategies that may help catalyze current theoretical and analytical energy and innovation in research on same-sex relationships: (a) gendered relational contexts and dyadic data analysis, (b) quasi-experimental designs, and (c) the relationship biography approach.

Gendered Relational Contexts and Dyadic Data Analysis

Gender almost certainly plays an important role in shaping relationship dynamics for same-sex couples, but gender is often conflated with gendered relational contexts in studies that compare same- and different-sex couples. For example, women with men may experience their relationships very differently from women with women, and these different experiences may reflect the respondent’s own gender (typically viewed in terms of a gender binary) and/or the gendered context of their relationship (i.e., being a woman in relation to a woman or a woman in relation to a man). A gender-as-relational perspective ( C. West & Zimmerman, 2009 ) suggests a shift from the focus on gender to a focus on gendered relational contexts that differentiates (at least) four groups for comparison in qualitative and quantitative research: (a) men in relationships with men, (b) men in relationships with women, (c) women in relationships with women, and (d) women in relationships with men (see also Goldberg, 2013 ; Umberson, Thomeer, & Lodge, in press ). Indeed, some scholars argue that unbiased gender effects in quantitative studies of relationships cannot be estimated unless researchers include men and women in different- and same-sex couples so that effects for the four aforementioned groups can be estimated ( T. V. West, Popp, & Kenny, 2008 ). Similarly, others emphasize same-sex couples as an important counterfactual to different-sex couples in broadening our understanding of gender and relationships ( Carpenter & Gates, 2008 ; Joyner et al., 2013 ; Moore, 2008 ). For example, recent qualitative research has shown that although gender drives differences in the way individuals view emotional intimacy (with women desiring more permeable boundaries between partners in both same- and different-sex contexts), gendered relational contexts drive the types of emotion work that individuals do to promote intimacy in their relationships (with women with men and men with men doing more emotion work to sustain boundaries between partners; Umberson et al., in press ). A gender-as-relational perspective also draws on intersectionality research ( Collins, 1999 ) to emphasize that gendered interactions reflect more than the gender of each partner; instead, gendered experiences vary depending on other aspects of social location (e.g., the experience of gender may depend on gender identity).

Dyadic data analysis

Although quite a few nonprobability samples (qualitative and quantitative) include data from both partners in relationships, many of these studies have analyzed individuals rather than adopting methods that are designed to analyze dyadic data (for quantitative exceptions, see Clausell & Roisman, 2009 ; Parsons, Starks, Gamarel, & Grov, 2012 ; Totenhagen et al., 2012 ; for qualitative exceptions, see Moore, 2008 ; Reczek & Umberson, 2012 ; Umberson et al, in press ). Yet leading family scholars call for more research that analyzes dyadic-/couple-level data ( Carr & Springer, 2010 ). Dyadic data and methods provide a promising strategy for studying same- and different-sex couples across gendered relational contexts and for further considering how gender identity and presentation matter across and within these contexts. We now touch on some unique elements of dyadic data analysis for quantitative studies of same-sex couples, but we refer readers elsewhere for comprehensive guides to analyzing quantitative dyadic data, both in general ( Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006 ) and specifically for same-sex couples ( Smith, Sayer, & Goldberg, 2013 ), and for analyzing qualitative dyadic data ( Eisikovits & Koren, 2010 ).

Many approaches to analyzing dyadic data require that members of a dyad be distinguishable from each other ( Kenny et al., 2006 ). Studies that examine gender effects in different-sex couples can distinguish dyad members on the basis of sex of partner, but sex of partner cannot be used to distinguish between members of same-sex dyads. To estimate gender effects in multilevel models comparing same- and different-sex couples, researchers can use the factorial method developed by T. V. West and colleagues (2008) . This approach calls for the inclusion of three gender effects in a given model: (a) gender of respondent, (b) gender of partner, and (c) the interaction between gender of respondent and gender of partner. Goldberg and colleagues (2010) used this method to illustrate gendered dynamics of perceived parenting skills and relationship quality across same- and different-sex couples before and after adoption and found that both same- and different-sex parents experience a decline in relationship quality during the first years of parenting but that women experience steeper declines in love across relationship types.

Dyadic diary data

Dyadic diary methods may provide particular utility in advancing our understanding of gendered relational contexts. These methods involve the collection of data from both partners in a dyad, typically via short daily questionnaires, over a period of days or weeks ( Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013 ). This approach is ideal for examining relationship dynamics that unfold over short periods of time (e.g., the effect of daily stress levels on relationship conflict) and has been used extensively in the study of different-sex couples, in particular to examine gender differences in relationship experiences and consequences. Totenhagen et al. (2012) also used diary data to study men and women in same-sex couples and found that daily stress was significantly and negatively correlated with relationship closeness, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction in similar ways for men and women. Diary data collected from both partners in same- and different-sex contexts would make it possible for future studies to conduct longitudinal analyses of daily fluctuations in reciprocal relationship dynamics and outcomes as well as to consider whether and how these processes vary by gendered relationship context and are potentially moderated by gender identity and gender presentation.

Quasi-Experimental Designs

Quasi-experimental designs that test the effects of social policies on individuals and couples in same-sex relationships provide another promising research strategy. These designs provide a way to address questions of causal inference by looking at data across place (i.e., across state and national contexts) and over time—in particular, before and after the implementation of exclusionary (e.g., same-sex marriage bans) or inclusionary (e.g., legalization of same-sex marriage) policies ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2012 ; Hatzenbuehler, Keyes, & Hasin, 2009 ; Hatzenbuehler, McLaughlin, Keyes, & Hasin, 2010 ; see Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002 , regarding quasi-experimental methods). This approach turns the methodological challenge of a constantly changing legal landscape into an exciting opportunity to consider how social policies influence relationships and how this influence may vary across age cohorts. For example, researchers might test the effects of policy implementation on relationship quality or marriage formation across age cohorts.

Quasi-experimental designs have not yet been applied to the study of same-sex relationship outcomes, but a number of recent studies point to the potential for innovation. Hatzenbuehler has been at the forefront of research using quasi-experimental designs to consider how same-sex marriage laws influence health care expenditures for sexual minority men ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2012 ) and psychopathology in sexual minority populations ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2010 ). For example, he found that the effect of marriage policy change on health care use and costs was similar for gay and bisexual men who were unpartnered and those who were in same-sex relationships ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2012 ). He and his colleagues have noted that the challenges of a quasi-experimental approach include dealing with the constraints of measures available in existing data sets before and after policy implementation and the difficulty (or impossibility) of knowing when particular policies will be implemented, as well as limitations associated with lack of random assignment and changes other than policy shifts that occur during the same time period and may influence results ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009 , 2010 , 2012 ). One strategy for addressing the latter challenge is to test the plausibility of alternative explanations; for example, Hatzenbuehler et al. (2012) examined whether other co-occurring changes could explain their findings (e.g., changes in health care use among all Massachusetts residents). Future studies could also follow up on prior qualitative and quantitative data collections to compare individual and relationship experiences of interest (e.g., relationship satisfaction) before and after policy changes (e.g., repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act).

Quasi-experimental designs are also useful for identifying mechanisms (e.g., stress) that explain different outcomes across and within couples. Sexual minority populations face higher rates of stress, stigma, and discrimination both at the individual and institutional level, as described by Meyer’s (2003) minority stress model. Measures that tap into minority stress and discrimination could be incorporated in future studies as a way to better understand same-sex relationship dynamics and outcomes for individuals and dyads (see LeBlanc, Frost, & White, 2015 ). For example, Frost and Meyer (2009) found that higher levels of internalized homophobia were associated with worse relationship quality for lesbian, gay, and bisexual men and women. These associations could be evaluated before and after key policy changes. Moreover, this approach could use dyadic data to assess the effects of policy change on couples and individuals in same- and different-sex relationships ( LeBlanc et al., 2015 ).

Relationship Biography Approach

In closing, we suggest that a relationship biography approach —that is, focusing on temporal changes in relationship statuses and other components of relationship histories, such as relationship durations—be used as an organizing framework to drive future qualitative and quantitative research and studies of individuals as well as partner dyads. The life course perspective ( Elder, Johnson, & Crosnoe, 2003 ) has been used to guide a relationship biography approach in studies of different-sex couples (e.g., Hughes & Waite, 2009 ) and could offer great utility in addressing key challenges of research on same-sex couples ( Institute of Medicine, 2011 ). In particular, a relationship biography approach could take into account the constantly changing legal landscape and relationship status options for same-sex couples, the varying amounts of time it would be possible to spend in those statuses (both over time and across geographic areas/states/nations), and cohort differences. A biographical approach would address these challenges by considering three things: (a) multiple relationship statuses over the life course; (b) duration of time in each relationship status; and (c) history of transitions into and out of relationships, as well as timing of those transitions in the life course. We further suggest that change in relationship quality over time be considered as a component of relationship biography. The biographical frame can be used with different theoretical approaches, is multidisciplinary in scope, urges multiple and intersecting research methods, and emphasizes diversity in life course experiences.

In considering an individual’s relationship biography over the life course, information on the legal status (e.g., civil union, registered domestic partnership) of each of his or her unions could be collected. Although the available evidence is mixed, some studies suggest that same-sex unions dissolve more quickly than do different-sex unions ( Lau, 2012 ). However, we do not yet have extensive biographical evidence about the duration of same-sex unions in the United States, or how access to marriage might influence relationship duration. By taking into account relationship duration and transitions out of significant relationships, future research could also address the predictors, experiences, and consequences of relationship dissolution through death or breakup, experiences that have not been adequately explored in past research on same-sex couples ( Gates & Badgett, 2006 ; Rothblum, 2009 ). A relationship biography approach could also take into account gender identity and sexual identity transitions. Prior qualitative research suggests that one partner’s gender transition has important implications for relationship dynamics (e.g., the division of labor) as well as relationship formation and dissolution ( Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013 ; Pfeffer, 2010 ).

Relationship biography is fundamentally shaped by birth cohort, race/ethnicity, gender and transgender identity, social class, and former as well as current sexual orientation. Older cohorts of people in same-sex relationships, who formed their relationships in an era of significantly greater discrimination and no legal recognition for same-sex couples, may differ dramatically from younger cohorts ( LeBlanc et al., 2015 ; Patterson & Tornello, 2010 ). Unique historical backdrops result in different relationship histories (e.g., number of years cohabiting prior to marriage, shifts in sexual orientation, risk for HIV, and effects on relationship dynamics), parenting experiences, and, potentially, relationship quality for younger and older cohorts. Thus, age, period, and cohort variation are important to consider in future studies of same-sex relationships ( Gotta et al., 2011 ).

A biographical approach should incorporate information on relationship quality. Studies of different-sex couples show that relationship quality is linked to relationship duration and transitions, as well as mental and physical health ( Choi & Marks, 2013 ; Umberson, Williams, Powers, Liu, & Needham, 2006 ). Currently, most national data sets that include information on relationship dynamics (e.g., the National Survey of Families and Households, the Health and Retirement Survey) do not include sufficient numbers of same-sex couples to allow valid statistical analysis. Incorporating relationship quality measures into representative data sets will contribute to a better understanding of the predictors and consequences of relationship quality for same-sex partnerships, the links between relationship quality and relationship duration and transitions, and relationship effects on psychological and physical well-being. A relationship biography can be obtained retrospectively in cross-sectional data collections or assessed longitudinally as relationships evolve over time. A relationship biography approach would benefit from including an unpartnered comparison group, taking into account previous relationship statuses. A biographical approach might also be used in future research to consider the impact of structural changes (in addition to personal or relationship changes), such as change in public policies or moving to/from a geographic area with laws/policies that support same-sex relationships.

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health, see www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth ) provides a promising opportunity for studying same-sex relationship biographies in the future. This nationally representative study of adolescents (beginning in 1994) has followed respondents into young adulthood; respondents were, on average, age 28 in the most recent survey. Add Health includes measures of same-sex attraction, sexual identity, and histories of same- and different-sex relationships, allowing for detailed analysis of the lives of young adults. A biographical approach directs attention to relationship formation throughout the life course, and Add Health data may be useful for studies of relationship formation. For example, Ueno (2010) used Add Health data to incorporate the idea of life course transitions into a study of shifts in sexual orientation among adolescents over time and found that moving from different-sex relationships to same-sex relationships was correlated with worse mental health than continually dating same-sex partners. A focus on relationship transitions between same- and different-sex relationships over the life course builds on theoretical and empirical work on the fluidity of sexual attraction ( Diamond, 2008 ; Savin-Williams, Joyner, & Rieger, 2012 ). Bisexual patterns of sexual attraction and behavior (which are more common than exclusive same-sex sexuality) and transitions between same- and different-sex unions and the timing of those transitions are important, but understudied, research topics ( Biblarz & Savci, 2010 ) that could be addressed through a relationship biography lens. For example, future studies could consider the ages at which these transitions are most likely to occur, duration of same- and different-sex unions, relationship quality experiences, and effects on individual well-being. Men and women may differ in these relationship experiences; women seem to be more situationally dependent and fluid in their sexuality than are men ( Diamond, 2008 ; Savin-Williams et al., 2012 ).

Researchers have also used Add Health data to study same-sex romantic attraction and substance use ( Russell, Driscoll, & Truong, 2002 ), same-sex dating and mental health ( Ueno, 2010 ), and same-sex intimate partner violence ( Russell, Franz, & Driscoll, 2001 ). As respondents age, the Add Health project will become even more valuable to a relationship biography approach. For example, Meier and colleagues ( Meier, Hull, & Ortyl, 2009 ) compared relationship values of heterosexual youth with those of sexual minority youth; follow-up studies could assess whether these differences in values influence relationships throughout adulthood. Data for studying relationship biographies of older cohorts of same-sex couples are sorely lacking at the national level. Investigators certainly must continue to push for funding to include same-sex relationships in new and ongoing data collections. Scholars who have collected data from individuals in same-sex relationships in the past should also consider returning to their original respondents for longitudinal follow-up, as well as follow-up with respondents’ partners (e.g., Rothblum et al., 2011a ).

Research on same-sex relationships is in a period of intense discovery and enlightenment, and advances in the study of these relationships are sure to further our theoretical and empirical knowledge in family studies more broadly. Because of the diversity of same-sex couples and the increasing political and legal significance of who is in a same-sex relationship or family, it is essential to advance research that reflects professional and ethical standards as well as the diversity of same-sex couples ( Perrin, Cohen, & Caren, 2013 ). Decades of federally funded research have enriched the available data on different-sex couples, yet current longitudinal data on same-sex couples are comparable to those gained through research on different-sex couples 30 or more years ago. Investment in future data collections will be essential to advancing knowledge on same-sex couples. Although there is much that we can learn from data collections and methods used to study different-sex couples, we should not simply superimpose those procedures onto the study of same-sex couples. Indeed, as we have discussed, some research questions, measures, and sample composition issues are unique to the study of same-sex relationships and require novel approaches.

Most people yearn for and value an intimate relationship and, once established, a cohabiting, marital, or romantic union becomes a defining feature of their lives. Relationships inevitably go through ups and downs. At some points, partners impose stress on each other, and at other times they provide invaluable emotional support. Over the life course, relationships are formed, sustained, and inevitably ended through breakup or death, with profound effects on individuals and families. Family scholars must design studies that address same-sex partner dating and relationship formation as well as relationship losses and transitions throughout life, with all the vicissitudes therein. In this article we have identified contemporary challenges to research on same-sex relationships and suggested strategies for beginning to address those challenges in order to capture the fullness of lives as they are lived across diverse communities. We hope these strategies will inspire scholars to move the field forward in new and innovative ways.

Acknowledgments

We thank Justin Denney, Jennifer Glass, Mark Hatzenbuehler, Kara Joyner, Wendy Manning, Corinne Reczek, and Esther Rothblum for their helpful comments on this article. This research was supported, in part, by an Investigator in Health Policy Research Award to Debra Umberson from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Grant R21 AG044585, awarded to Debra Umberson in the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin by the National Institute on Aging; Grant 5 R24 HD042849, awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; and Grant F32 HD072616, awarded to Rhiannon A. Kroeger in the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

• American Sociological Association. Brief of amicus curiae American Sociological Association in support of respondent Kristin M. Perry and respondent Edith Schlain Windsor. Washington, DC: Author; 2013. Retrieved from www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12144_307_Amicus_%20(C_%20Gottlieb)_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Badgett MVL. When gay people get married. New York: New York University Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Badgett MVL, Durso LE, Schneebaum A. New patterns of poverty in the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bates N, DeMaio TJ. Measuring same-sex relationships. Contexts. 2013; 12 :66–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard J. The future of marriage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biblarz TJ, Savci E. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 :480–497. [ Google Scholar ]
• Black D, Gates G, Sanders S, Taylor L. Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. Demography. 2000; 37 :139–154. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blosnich JR, Bossarte RM. Comparisons of intimate partner violence among partners in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2009; 99 :2182–2184. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolger N, Laurenceau J. Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. New York: Guilford Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brewster KL, Tillman KH, Jokinen-Gordon H. Demographic characteristics of lesbian parents in the United States. Population Research and Policy Review. 2014; 33 :503–526. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter C, Gates GJ. Gay and lesbian partnership: Evidence from California. Demography. 2008; 45 :573–590. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carr D, Springer KW. Advances in families and health research in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 :743–761. [ Google Scholar ]
• Center of Excellence for Transgender Health. Recommendations for inclusive data collection of trans people in HIV prevention, care, and services. 2014 Retrieved from http://transhealth.ucsf.edu/trans?page=lib-data-collection .
• Cheng S, Powell B. Small samples, big challenges: Studying atypical family forms. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005; 67 :926–935. [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi H, Marks NF. Marital quality, socioeconomic status, and physical health. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2013; 75 :903–919. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clausell E, Roisman GI. Outness, Big Five personality traits, and same-sex relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2009; 26 :211–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins PH. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeBoer v. Snyder , 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (ED Mich. 2014).
• Denney JT, Gorman BK, Barrera CB. Families, resources, and adult health: Where do sexual minorities fit? Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2013; 54 :46–63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diamond LM. Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• DiBennardo R, Gates GJ. Research note: U.S. Census same-sex couple data: Adjustments to reduce measurement error and empirical implications. Population Research and Policy Review. 2014; 33 :603–614. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elder GH, Jr, Johnson MK, Crosnoe R. The emergence and development of life course theory. In: Mortimer JT, Shanahan MJ, editors. Handbook of the life course. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum; 2003. pp. 3–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisikovits Z, Koren C. Approaches to and outcomes of dyadic interview analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 2010; 20 :1642–1655. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farr RH, Patterson CJ. Coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Associations with adopted children’s outcomes. Child Development. 2013; 84 :1226–1240. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Festy P. Enumerating same-sex couples in censuses and population registers. Demographic Research. 2008; 17 :339–368. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frost DM, Meyer IH. Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2009; 56 :97–109. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ. Geographic trends among same-sex couples in the US Census and the American Community Survey. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ. LGBT parenting in the United States. Los Angeles. The Williams Institute; 2013a. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ. Same-sex and different-sex couples in the American Community Survey: 2005–2011. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2013b. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ, Badgett MVL. Gay and lesbian families: A research agenda. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ, Cook AM. Census snapshot: 2010 methodology—Adjustment procedures for same-sex couple data. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg AE. “Doing” and “undoing” gender: The meaning and division of housework in same-sex couples. Journal of Family Theory & Review. 2013; 5 :85–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg AE, Kinkler LA, Richardson HB, Downing JB. Lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples in open adoption arrangements: A qualitative study. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2011; 73 :502–518. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg AE, Smith JZ, Kashy DA. Preadoptive factors predicting lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples’ relationship quality across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology. 2010; 24 :221–232. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzales G, Blewett LA. National and state-specific health insurance disparities for adults in same-sex relationships. American Journal of Public Health. 2014; 104 :e95–e104. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gotta G, Green R, Rothblum E, Solomon S, Balsam K, Schwartz P. Heterosexual, lesbian, and gay male relationships: A comparison of couples in 1975 and 2000. Family Process. 2011; 50 :353–376. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman JM. The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1993; 61 :6–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatzenbuehler ML, Keyes KM, Hasin DS. State-level policies and psychiatric morbidity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. American Journal of Public Health. 2009; 99 :2275–2281. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatzenbuehler ML, McLaughlin KA, Keyes KM, Hasin DS. The impact of institutional discrimination of psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: A prospective study. American Journal of Public Health. 2010; 100 :452–459. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatzenbuehler ML, O’Cleirigh C, Grasso C, Mayer K, Safren S, Bradford J. Effect of same-sex marriage laws on health care use and expenditures in sexual minority men: A quasi-natural experiment. American Journal of Public Health. 2012; 102 :285–291. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollingsworth v. Perry , 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013).
• Hughes ME, Waite LJ. Marital biography and health at mid-life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2009; 50 :344–358. doi: 10.1177/002214650905000307. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Medicine. The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: Building a foundation for better understanding. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2011. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joyner K, Manning W, Bogle R. Working Paper. Center for Family and Demographic Research; Bowling Green, OH: 2013. The stability and qualities of same-sex and different-sex couples in young adulthood. Retrieved from http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-BGSU-2013-002/PWP-BGSU-2013-002.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL. Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kroeger RA, Smock PJ. Cohabitation: Recent research and implications. In: Treas JK, Scott J, Richards M, editors. The Wiley-Blackwell companion to the sociology of families. 2. New York: Wiley-Blackwell; 2014. pp. 217–235. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurdek LA. Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004; 66 :880–900. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurdek LA. What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2005; 14 :251–254. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurdek LA. Differences between partners from heterosexual, gay, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2006; 68 :509–528. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00268.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lau CQ. The stability of same-sex cohabitation, different-sex cohabitation, and marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012; 74 :973–988. [ Google Scholar ]
• LeBlanc AJ, Frost DM, White RG. Minority stress and stress proliferation among same-sex and other marginalized couples. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2015; 77 :xxx–xxx. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu H, Reczek C, Brown DC. Same-sex cohabitation and self-rated health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2013; 54 :25–45. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCormack M. Innovative sampling and participant recruitment in sexuality research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2014; 31 :475–481. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meier A, Hull KE, Ortyl TA. Young adult relationship values at the intersection of gender and sexuality. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009; 71 :510–25. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin. 2003; 129 :674–697. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer IH, Wilson PA. Sampling lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2009; 56 :23–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore MR. Gendered power relations among women: A study of household decision making in Black, lesbian stepfamilies. American Sociological Review. 2008; 73 :335–356. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore MR, Stambolis-Ruhstorfer M. LGBT sexuality and families at the start of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Sociology. 2013; 39 :491–507. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ocobock A. The power and limits of marriage: Married gay men’s family relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2013; 75 :91–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parsons JT, Starks TJ, Gamarel KE, Grov C. Non-monogamy and sexual relationship quality among same-sex male couples. Journal of Family Psychology. 2012; 26 :669–677. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson CJ. Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2000; 62 :1052–1069. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson CJ, Riskind RG. To be a parent: Issues in family formation among gay and lesbian adults. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2010; 6 :326–340. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson CJ, Tornello SL. Gay fathers’ pathways to parenthood: International perspectives. Journal of Family Research. 2010; 22 :103–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peplau LA, Fingerhut AW. The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007; 58 :405–524. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peplau LA, Fingerhut AW, Beals KP. Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and gay men. In: Harvey JH, Wenzel A, Sprecher S, editors. Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and gay men. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2004. pp. 349–369. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perrin AJ, Cohen PN, Caren N. Are children of parents who had same-sex relationships disadvantaged? A scientific evaluation of the no-differences hypothesis. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health. 2013; 17 :327–336. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pfeffer CA. “Women’s work”? Women partners of transgender men doing housework and emotion work. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 :165–183. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reczek C. The intergenerational relationships of gay men and lesbian women. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2014 Advance online publication. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reczek C, Elliott S, Umberson D. Commitment without marriage: Union formation among long-term same-sex couples. Journal of Family Issues. 2009; 30 :738–756. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reczek C, Umberson D. Gender, health behavior, and intimate relationships: Lesbian, gay, and straight contexts. Social Science & Medicine. 2012; 74 :1783–1790. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Regnerus M. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science Research. 2012; 41 :752–770. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riggle E, Rostosky SS, Reedy CS. Online surveys for BGLT research: Issues and techniques. Journal of Homosexuality. 2005; 49 :1–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenfeld MJ. Couple Longevity in the Era of Same-Sex Marriage in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2014; 76 :905–918. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12141. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenfeld MJ, Thomas RJ, Falcon M. How Couples Meet and Stay Together, Waves 1, 2, and 3: Public version 3.04, plus wave 4 supplement version 1.02 [Computer files] Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries; 2011 & 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothblum ED. An overview of same-sex couples in relationships: A research area still at sea. In: Hope DA, editor. Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities. New York: Springer; 2009. pp. 113–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothblum ED, Balsam KF, Solomon SE. The longest “legal” U.S. same-sex couples reflect on their relationships. Journal of Social Issues. 2011a; 67 :302–315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothblum ED, Balsam KF, Solomon SE. Narratives of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont: The impact of legalizing relationships on couples and on social policy. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. 2011b; 8 :183–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell ST, Driscoll AK, Truong N. Adolescent same-sex romantic attractions and relationships: Implications for substance use and abuse. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92 :198–202. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell ST, Franz BT, Driscoll AK. Same-sex romantic attraction and experiences of violence in adolescence. American Journal of Public Health. 2001; 91 :903–906. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savin-Williams RC, Joyner K, Rieger G. Prevalence and stability of self-reported sexual orientation identity during young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2012; 41 :103–110. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell D. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith JZ, Sayer AG, Goldberg AE. Multilevel modeling approaches to the study of LGBT-parent families: Methods for dyadic data analysis. In: Goldberg AE, Allen KR, editors. LGBT-parent families. New York: Springer; 2013. pp. 307–323. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon SE, Rothblum ED, Balsam KF. Pioneers in partnership: Lesbian and gay male couples in civil unions compared with those not in civil unions and married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psychology. 2004; 18 :275–286. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinbugler AC. Beyond loving: Intimate racework in lesbian, gay, and straight interracial relationships. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Totenhagen CJ, Butler EA, Ridley CA. Daily stress, closeness, and satisfaction in gay and lesbian couples. Personal Relationships. 2012; 19 :219–233. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ueno K. Same-sex experience and mental health during the transition between adolescence and young adulthood. Sociological Quarterly. 2010; 51 :484–510. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Chen MD, House JS, Hopkins K, Slaten E. The effect of social relationships on psychological well-being: Are men and women really so different? American Sociological Review. 1996; 61 :837–857. [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Montez JK. Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2010; 51 :S54–S66. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Thomeer MB, Lodge AC. Intimacy and emotion work in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family (in press) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Williams K, Powers DP, Liu H, Needham B. You make me sick: Marital quality and health over the life course. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2006; 47 :1–16. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waite LJ. Does marriage matter? Demography. 1995; 32 :483–507. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West C, Zimmerman DH. Accounting for doing gender. Gender & Society. 2009; 23 :112–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• West TV, Popp D, Kenny DA. A guide for the estimation of gender and sexual orientation effects in dyadic data: An actor–partner interdependence model approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2008; 34 :321–336. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wienke C, Hill GJ. Does the “marriage benefit” extend to partners in gay and lesbian relationships? Journal of Family Issues. 2009; 30 :259–289. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wight RG, LeBlanc AJ, Badgett MVL. Same-sex legal marriage and psychological well-being: Findings from the California Health Interview Survey. American Journal of Public Health. 2013; 103 :339–346. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolkomir M. Making heteronormative reconciliations the story of romantic love, sexuality, and gender in mixed-orientation marriages. Gender & Society. 2009; 23 :494–519. [ Google Scholar ]

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

In places where same-sex marriages are legal, how many married same-sex couples are there?

Same-sex marriage is now legal in more than 30 countries and territories around the world, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis . In 24 of these places where detailed statistics are available, same-sex marriages in recent years have ranged from less than 1% to 3.4% of all marriages.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to find out how common same-sex marriage is in countries and territories where it is legal. This analysis is based on official marriage statistics from the jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is permitted. In the United States, which does not collect marriage data nationally, we used data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and Current Population Survey to estimate the share of all married-couple households with same-sex married couples. Figures for all other countries and territories represent marriages recorded in the given year.

The analysis used the most recent year for which marriage statistics were available in each country – 2020, 2021 or 2022, depending on the country. For the United Kingdom, that was 2020 because, even though the statistical agencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland had data for 2021, the office for England and Wales did not. (Bear in mind that the number of marriages that occurred in these places may have been impacted by COVID-19 restrictions on gatherings.)

Other jurisdictions were excluded from the analysis because data on same-sex marriages was not readily available. Argentina, for instance, has no single nationwide repository for vital statistics on such topics as marriage. In Canada, some provinces and territories don’t record the gender of marriage partners on their registration forms, so Statistics Canada doesn’t release separate nationwide statistics for same- and opposite-sex marriages.

In South Africa, same-sex marriages are called “civil unions,” but they carry the same rights and obligations as civil and traditional marriages and are considered legally equivalent. Data for New Zealand and Portugal includes marriages between overseas residents or foreigners who got married in those countries.

In Spain, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005, 3.4% of the 148,588 marriages registered in 2021 were same-sex – the highest share among the countries and territories for which data is available. (The latest year available is 2020, 2021 or 2022, depending on the jurisdiction.)

The lowest rate of same-sex marriage was in Ecuador, where the Constitutional Court legalized it in a 2019 ruling. In 2021, only 250 out of 56,921 marriages registered in the country , or 0.4%, were between same-sex couples.

Related: How people in 24 countries view same-sex marriage

The United Kingdom had the second-highest share of same-sex marriages among the countries with data available, at 3.3%. However, in the UK, data is reported for three subnational jurisdictions – England and Wales together, Scotland and Northern Ireland – rather than for the country as a whole.

In 2020, the most recent year figures are available for all three units, same-sex marriages accounted for 3.3% of all marriages in England and Wales, 3.5% in Scotland, and 4.2% in Northern Ireland – making the same-sex marriage share 3.3% for the entire UK. Scotland and Northern Ireland have since published marriage data for 2021, with same-sex marriage rates that year of 3.4% and 5.0%, respectively, but the Office for National Statistics for England and Wales has yet to do so.

Twenty of the jurisdictions that had data on same-sex marriages distinguished marriages between women from those between men. In 16 of these places, a majority of same-sex marriages were between two women. The biggest disparity was in Taiwan, where 1,794 of the 2,493 same-sex marriages recorded in 2022, or 72.0%, were between two women. The highest share of marriages between men was in Costa Rica, where they comprised 370 of the 677 same-sex marriages (54.7%) recorded in 2022.

Directly comparable figures for the United States aren’t available because marriage registrations are kept at the state and local levels rather than nationally, and not all jurisdictions keep separate counts of same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. However, the Census Bureau estimates that as of 2021, 711,129 of the nation’s 61.3 million married-couple households, or 1.2%, involved same-sex married couples. As in many other countries, households with two married women were more prevalent than households with two married men in the U.S., accounting for 52.6% of all same-sex married-couple households.

Overall, Gallup estimates that as of 2022, 7.2% of American adults identify as “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or something other than straight or heterosexual.”

• International Affairs
• LGBTQ Acceptance
• LGBTQ Attitudes & Experiences
• Same-Sex Marriage

Drew DeSilver is a senior writer at Pew Research Center

A growing share of Americans have little or no confidence in Netanyahu

Fewer americans view the united nations favorably than in 2023, what are americans’ top foreign policy priorities, rising numbers of americans say jews and muslims face a lot of discrimination, younger americans stand out in their views of the israel-hamas war, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy